Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Dhurav Real Estate Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2013–14. The petitioner also challenged CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 to the extent it stated that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013–14 were not time-barred.

The petitioner contended that in view of subsequent judicial pronouncements, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, the impugned reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and liable to be set aside.

Issues Involved

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2013–14 were barred by limitation under Section 149, whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were sustainable in light of settled legal position, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that the legal position regarding limitation for reopening assessments for AY 2013–14 stood conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and by subsequent decisions of the Delhi High Court and other High Courts. It was argued that in view of the settled law and the factual position emerging from the record, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148 were unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue submitted that instead of quashing the reassessment proceedings outright, the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind to the facts of the case afresh and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the settled legal position on limitation.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the controversy raised by the petitioner required consideration in light of the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and followed by this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. The Court also took note of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Industries Limited, wherein a similar course of remand was adopted.

Accepting the submission of the Revenue, the Court held that the appropriate course would be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to submit before the Assessing Officer the chart that had been filed before the Court, and directed the Assessing Officer to grant a hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that the Assessing Officer, while reconsidering the matter, shall apply his mind independently to the facts of the case and the settled legal position relating to limitation, and shall not be influenced by the earlier impugned order.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer, who was directed to grant a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit after the petitioner submits the requisite chart. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

 

Link to Download Order- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769594735_DHURAVREALESTATEDEVELOPERSPRIVATELIMITEDVsINCOMETAXOFFICERWARD71DELHIANR..pdf    

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.