PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs M/S EAST DELHI LEASING PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 61/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr.Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr.Sanjeev Menon and Mr.Rahul Singh, JSCs along with Mr.Anmol Jagga, Adv. for Revenue. versus M/S EAST DELHI LEASING PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Mr.Samarth Chaudhari, Adv. % Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:- “a) To frame the substantial questions of Law mentioned in Para 2 of the appeal; b) To frame any other substantial question of Law which may arise from the impugned order dated 10.04.2024; c) To set aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 dismissing the appeal of the revenue and allowing the appeal of the Respondent/Assessee; and d) Pass any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ITA 61/2025 Page 1 of 12 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 12:26:40 3. From the examination of the impugned judgement of the learnd ITAT, it is manifest that the reasoning contained therein to conclude that the notice under section 148 of the Act, issued under the erstwhile regime suffers from the vice of “reason to suspect” rather than “reason to believe” is predicated on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a criminal case. It would be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order which read thus: “6. On perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced supra, we find that there is no dispute that th