Abhinav Jindal Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
In the case of Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court), the petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) regarding reassessment for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue revolved around whether the time spent defending a reassessment notice, which had been issued incorrectly under the old regime, could extend the limitation period for issuing a new notice. The petitioner contended that the notice issued on 24.04.2024 was beyond the statutory time limit.
The Delhi High Court found that the reassessment notice under Section 148 issued for the assessment year 2016-17 was indeed time-barred, as the prescribed limitation period had expired on 31.03.2023. Despite the Revenue’s argument that the time spent in earlier legal proceedings should be excluded, the Court rejected this contention. The court emphasized that the reassessment notice, which had initially been issued under the old regime before the Finance Act 2021, could not be considered valid as it failed to comply with the procedural requirements stipulated by the amended law.
Further, the Court referred to previous rulings, including Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer (2024) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024), which upheld that notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime could only be issued within the limitation periods specified, and time spent on challenges could not extend these periods. In the case of Ashish Agarwal (2023), the Supreme Court had mandated that notices issued under the old regime but after 01.04.2021 be construed as notices under Section 148A(b), which further underscored the need to adhere strictly to the prescribed timeframes.
