PCIT Vs Annex Infrarealty Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Department’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the ITAT order dated 08.01.2025. The dispute concerned AY 2011-12 following a search conducted on 23.07.2015, with satisfaction recorded on 23.03.2018.
The Court noted that, calculated from 23.03.2018, AY 2011-12 was beyond the six-year limitation period. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi), and the Tribunal affirmed that decision.
The Department could not point to any contrary judgment and submitted only that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition where notice had been issued. The High Court held that the principle laid down in Ojjus Medicare continued to hold the field and, following that decision, dismissed the Department’s appeal.
Cases Discussed
- PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court), [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), inter alia, assailing the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.2163/De1/2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 (hereinafter referred to as `CIT(A)), have been dismissed.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, a search was conducted by the Department on 23.07.2015 and a satisfaction was recorded on 23.03.2018. The Assessment Year in question is 2011-12. If calculated from such date e., 23.03.2018 (Assessment Year 2019-20), said Assessment Year namely 2011-12 is apparently beyond the limitation period of 06 years, as has been held by this Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. LteL [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi).
3. The CIT(A) relied upon Ojjus Medicare (supra) and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee which has been affirmed by the Tribunal.
4. Mr. V.K. Saksena, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant-Department, could not point out any judgment contrary to the view which has been taken by this Court. The only submission he advanced was that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, wherein notice has been issued.
5. Considering that law laid down by Ojjus Medicare (supra) still holds field, following the decision in Ojjus Medicare (supra), we dismiss the present appeal.
