SARIKA KANSAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 7940/2024 & CM APPL. 32747/2024 SARIKA KANSAL ..... Petitioner versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr. V.P. Gupta and Mr. Anunav Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC alongwith Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSC, Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSC, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Kuldeep Mishra and Mr. Swastik Mishra and Subham Kumar, Advocates. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON’BLE MR JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 22.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 22.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of assessment year (AY) 2017-18. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA W.P.(C) No.7940/2024 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:30.01.2025 15:44:18 2. The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order and the impugned notice is two-fold. First, that the impugned order has been passed without considering that the information on the basis of which it is premised was the subject matter of reassessment proceedings, which culminated in an order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner’s contentions were accepted, and no addition was made. The petitioner contends that assessment cannot be opened twice for the same reason. 3. The second ground is that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioner, the limitation for issuance of the impugned notice expired on 31.03.2024. 4. The grounds on wh