Delhi High Court – Orders
G D Goenka Tourism Corp Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Vibhu Bakhru
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 699/2025
G D GOENKA TOURISM CORP LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Indruj Singh Rai, senior standing
counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Mr
Rahul Singh, Mr Anmol Jagga and
Mr Gaurav Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 20.01.2025
CM APPL. 3342/2025
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 699/2025 and CM APPL. 3341/2025
3. Issue notice.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice.
5. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a
notice dated 25.09.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the
assessment year (AY) 2013-14.
6. The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period of limitation as
stipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act. However, it is the Revenue’s
case that the impugned notice is within time by virtue of Section 150 of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2025 at 21:51:41
Act. The Revenue claims that the impugned notice is premised on the
‘findings and directions’ as embodied in the decision of the Supreme Court
in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell
(P.) Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC 433. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had
held that in certain cases, the Assessing Officer (AO) could exercise its
powers under Section 147/148 of the Act, even in cases which are related to
a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act. The Revenue construes the
decision as constituting a finding or a direction for issuing such notices in
respect of cases such of the Assessee’s.
7. The question whether the decision in the case of Principal
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
(supra) constitutes a finding and a direction for permitting the issuance of a
notice under Section 148 of the Act in cases, which are otherwise beyond
the period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is no longer res
integra. This court in the case of ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors.:
Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:7423-DB had rejected a similar
contention. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:
“38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147
and 148 of the Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly appears in
paragraph 33 of the report and where the Supreme Court
observed that in cases where a search does not result in
any incriminating material being found, the only remedy
that would be available to the Revenue would be to resort
to reassessment.
39. However, the Supreme Court caveated that
observation by observing that the initiation of
reassessment would be “…..subject to fulfilment of the
conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such aThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2025 at 21:51:41
situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”.
This sentiment came to be reiterated with the Supreme
Court observing that the power of the Revenue to initiate
reassessment must be saved failing which it would be left
with no remedy. It was thereafter observed in paragraph
36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or unabated
assessments were concerned, they could be reopened by
the AO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act,
subject to the fulfillment of the conditions “……as
envisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Act
and those powers are saved”.
40. It thus becomes apparent that the liberty which the
Supreme Court accorded and the limited right inhering in
the Revenue to initiate reassessment was subject to that
power being otherwise compliant with the Chapter
pertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. The
observations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be
read or construed as a carte blanche enabling the
respondents to overcome and override the restrictions that
otherwise appear in Section 149 of the Act. The
observations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell
were thus intended to merely convey that the annulment
of the search assessments would not deprive or denude the
Revenue of its power to reassess and which independently
existed. However, the Supreme Court being mindful of
the statutory prescriptions, which otherwise imbue the
commencement of reassessment, qualified that
observation by providing that such an action would have
to be in accordance with law. This note of caution appears
at more than one place in that judgment and is apparent
from the Supreme Court observing that the power to
reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of the
conditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.”
8. Plainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the
decision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2025 at 21:51:42
Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (supra). The
contention that the time-period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is
not applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected.
9. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set
aside. Pending application is also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JANUARY 20, 2025
RK
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2025 at 21:51:43