Delhi HC Quashes Reassessment Notice as It Was Issued Beyond Ten-Year Limitation

H.M. Infracon Private Limited Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act as applicable to the relevant assessment year. It was further argued that the issue was covered by the Delhi High Court’s decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

The Revenue could not dispute the factual position pointed out by the petitioner.

After hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court observed that the impugned notice had been issued on 31.03.2024. Therefore, the relevant assessment year for computing the limitation period was 2024-25. When calculated backwards from Assessment Year 2024-25, the notice issued for Assessment Year 2013-14 was clearly beyond the permissible period of ten years.

Relying on its earlier decisions in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Dinesh Jindal, the Court held that the reassessment notice was time-barred.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued by respondents-Department for assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1961).

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2013-14).

3. He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).

4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Needless to mention that since the impugned notice was issued on 31.03.2024, the relevant assessment year is 2024-25. Therefore, the notice impugned issued qua assessment year 2013-14 is clearly beyond the period of 10 years, if calculated backward from assessment year 2024-25.

7. The notice impugned is, thus, quashed being time-barred. (In re: Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Dinesh Jindal (supra)).

8. The writ petition is allowed. Pending application stands disposed of.