Facts of the
Case
The petitioner,
Aryan Residency Limited, challenged a notice dated 12.03.2025 issued under
Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15. The impugned
proceedings were initiated pursuant to a search conducted under Section 132 on
15.02.2024. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the
period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 149(1). According
to the petitioner, applying the pre-amended provisions, the limitation regime
applicable to search cases was governed by erstwhile Section 153A, under which
the ten-year block had to be computed in the manner explained by the Delhi High
Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt.
Ltd.
Issues Involved
Whether the notice
dated 12.03.2025 issued under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 was barred by
limitation, how the ten-year block period under Section 153A is to be computed
in search cases, and whether the Assessing Officer could proceed with
reassessment proceedings for an assessment year falling outside the permissible
block.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner
submitted that the search took place on 15.02.2024, corresponding to Assessment
Year 2024-25. In terms of Explanation-I to the erstwhile Section 153A and the
interpretation laid down in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the ten-year block must
be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year
in which the search was conducted. On this computation, AY 2015-16 would be the
tenth year and AY 2014-15 would fall beyond the ten-year block and was
therefore barred by limitation. The petitioner placed reliance on a tabular
computation demonstrating that AY 2014-15 stood excluded from the permissible
block.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue
contended that the provisions of Sections 147 to 151, as they stood prior to
the Finance Act, 2024, were applicable and that notice could be issued up to
ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year in which the search was
conducted. It was argued that AY 2014-15 fell within ten years and that
incriminating material was found during the search and handed over to the
Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioner. The Revenue also
pointed out that the decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. had been challenged
before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
Court Order /
Findings
The Delhi High
Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the tabular computation placed by
the petitioner showing the ten-year block period. The Court observed that the
issue of computation of the ten-year block was squarely covered by its earlier
decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare
Pvt. Ltd., which held that the ten-year period under Section 153A is to be
reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in
which the search was conducted. Applying the said ratio, the Court held that AY
2014-15 fell outside the ten-year block in the present case. The pendency of an
SLP against Ojjus Medicare was held to be of no consequence, as the judgment
continued to bind the Court. Accordingly, the Court held that the Assessing
Officer could not proceed with assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 as the
same were barred by limitation.
Important
Clarification
The High Court
clarified that unless the judgment in Ojjus Medicare is stayed or set aside by
the Supreme Court, it continues to be binding precedent. The ten-year block
under Section 153A must be computed strictly in accordance with the statutory
explanation and judicial interpretation, and proceedings initiated for
assessment years falling beyond such block are without jurisdiction.
Final Outcome
The writ petition
was allowed. The notice dated 12.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the
Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 was set aside as being barred by
limitation, and the Assessing Officer was restrained from taking any further
steps pursuant thereto.
Link to
Download Order
Disclaimer
This content is
shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers
should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not
intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and
the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.
The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment