Appeal details
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
24-02-2025
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"$~107 \n* \nIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI \n+ \nW.P.(C) 5323/2024 &CM APPL. 21865/2024 \n \nGAURAV ARORA \n \n \n \n \n.....Petitioner \nThrough: \nMr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor \nand Ms. Soniya Dodeja, Advs. \n \n \n \n \n \nversus \n \n \nINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(1) DELHI \n& ORS. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n.....Respondents \nThrough: \nMr. \nGaurav \nGupta, \nSSC, \nMr. \nShivendra Singh, JSC, Mr Yojit \nPareek, JSC. \n \n \nCORAM: \n \nHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE \n \nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA \n \n \n \n \nO R D E R \n% \n \n \n \n24.02.2025 \n \n \n \n1. \nThe petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning \nnotice dated 28.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under \nSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of \nassessment year (AY) 2007-08. \n2. \nThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue \nstands covered by the decision of this Court in ARN Infrastructures India \nLtd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & \nOrs.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:7423-DB. \n3. \nThis Court in the case of ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. (supra) held \nThis is a digitally signed order.\nThe authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:37:09\n\nas under: \n“38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147 and 148 of \nthe Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly appears in paragraph 33 of the \nreport and where the Supreme Court observed that in cases where a \nsearch does not result in any incriminating material being found, the \nonly remedy that would be available to the Revenue would be to resort \nto reassessment. \n39. However, the Supreme Court caveated that observation by \nobserving that the initiation of reassessment would be “.....subject to \nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such \na situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”. This \nsentiment came to be reiterated with the Supreme Court observing \nthat the power of the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be saved \nfailing which it would be left with no remedy. It was thereafter \nobserved in paragraph 36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or \nunabated assessments were concerned, they could be reopened by the \nAO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to the \nfulfillment of the conditions “......as envisaged/mentioned under \nSections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved”. \n40. It thus becomes apparent that the liberty which the Supreme Court \naccorded and the limited right inhering in the Revenue to initiate \nreassessment was subject to that power being otherwise compliant \nwith the Chapter pertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. \nThe observations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be read or \nconstrued as a carte blanche enabling the respondents to overcome \nand override the restrictions that otherwise appear in Section 149 of \nthe Act. The observations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell \nwere thus intended to merely convey that the annulment of the search \nassessments would not deprive or denude the Revenue of its power to \nreassess and which independently existed. However, the Supreme \nCourt being mindful of the statutory prescriptions, which otherwise \nimbue the commencement of reassessment, qualified that observation \nby providing that such an action would have to be in accordance with \nlaw. This note of caution appears at more than one place in that \njudgment and is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the \npower to reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions \nmentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” \n4. \nPlainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the \ndecision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. (supra). The \ncontention that the time-period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is \nThis is a digitally signed order.\nThe authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:37:09\n\nnot applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected. \n5. \nThe learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid \nview. \n6. \nThe petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set \naside. Pending application is also disposed of. \n \nDEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ \n \nTUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J \nFEBRUARY 24, 2025/rl \n \n \n \n \nThis is a digitally signed order.\nThe authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.\nThe Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/03/2025 at 14:37:09\n"
AI Insights
The case involves Gaurav Arora, the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The petitioner argued that the notice was not in accordance with the law, referencing a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. The court examined the applicability of Sections 147 and 148 in the context of reassessment and the time-period restrictions under Section 149. Both parties agreed on the interpretation of the law as per the cited precedent, leading to the setting aside of the impugned notice.
