Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Delhi/
  4. 2024/
  5. October

M.g Metalloy Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Delhi & Ors.

Decided on 29 October 2024• Citation: W.P.(C)/14997/2024• High Court of Delhi
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                 $~47                                                             
                 *    IN THE   HIGH  COURT   OF DELHI  AT  NEW   DELHI            
                 +    W.P.(C) 14997/2024 & CM APPL. 62833/2024 (interim relief)   
                      M.G METALLOY    PRIVATE LIMITED           .....Petitioner   
                                     Through:  Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, 
                                               Ms. Soniya Dodeja, Mr. Divyansh    
                                               Dubey   &  Mr.   Govind  Gupta,    
                                               Advocates.                         
                                     versus                                       
                      ASSISTANT  COMMISSIONER    OF INCOME  TAX CENTRAL           
                      CIRCLE  2 DELHI & ORS.                    .....Respondents  
                                     Through:  Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr.    
                                               Anant Mann,  JSC, Mr. Abhishek     
                                               Anand   &   Ms.  Pranjal Singh,    
                                               Advocates.                         
                                               Ms. Babita Saini, SPC with Mr. Kapil
                                               Dev  Yadav, Mr. Govil Upadhyaya,   
                                               Advocates for R-2.                 
                      CORAM:                                                      
                      HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE VIBHU  BAKHRU                         
                      HON'BLE   MS. JUSTICE SWARANA    KANTA  SHARMA              
                                     O R D E R                                    
                 %                   29.10.2024                                   
                 1.    The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning
                 notice dated 31.07.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under
                 Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of
                 assessment year (AY) 2012-13.                                    
                 2.   The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period as stipulated under
                 Section 149(1) of the A                                          
                                     ct. However, it is the Revenue‟s case that the
                 impugned notice has been issued within the stipulated time by virtue of the
                 non-obstante clause under Section 150 of the Act. The Revenue claims that
   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 11/11/2024 at 11:31:55          

                 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.                                                      
                 3.   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
                 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 a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with
   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 11/11/2024 at 11:31:55          

                       no remedy    is sentiment came to be reiterated with the   
                               ”. Th                                              
                       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.                                    
                                        ”                                         
                 4.   Plainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the
                 decision of this Court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant
                 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
   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 11/11/2024 at 11:31:55          

                 not applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected.
                 5.   The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set
                 aside. Pending application is also disposed of.                  
                                                            VIBHU BAKHRU,   J     
                                                SWARANA    KANTA  SHARMA,   J     
                 OCTOBER    29, 2024/at                                           
                                              Click here to check corrigendum, if any
   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 11/11/2024 at 11:31:55