Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Himanshu Infratech Pvt. Ltd., challenged reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2014–15.

The challenge was directed against:

  • Notice dated 30.06.2021 (treated as Section 148A(b) notice post amendment)
  • Communication dated 13.05.2022
  • Order dated 27.07.2022 under Section 148A(d)
  • Consequent reassessment notice under Section 148

The petitioner argued that although the notice bore the date 30.06.2021, it was actually served via email on 16.07.2021, beyond the statutory limitation period.

It was further contended that:

  • The alleged income was already disclosed in financial statements
  • The limitation period expired on 30.06.2021 (as per TOLA)
  • Hence, reassessment proceedings were time-barred

Issues Involved

  1. Whether reassessment notice under Section 148 issued beyond limitation is valid?
  2. Whether service date or issuance date determines limitation compliance?
  3. Whether delay due to technical glitches can justify late issuance/service?
  4. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated post limitation expiry

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice dated 30.06.2021 was actually served only on 16.07.2021, beyond limitation
  • As per TOLA, the permissible period for issuing notice was 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021
  • The transaction in question was already fully disclosed, negating grounds for reassessment
  • The notice was unsigned/incomplete (no digital signature date)
  • Therefore, entire reassessment proceedings are void ab initio

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue admitted that the notice was served on 16.07.2021
  • However, delay was attributed to technical glitches in ITBA system
  • It was argued that the notice was dated within limitation (30.06.2021)

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

  • Mere dating of notice within limitation is insufficient; actual issuance/service must occur within limitation
  • The notice was served after expiry (16.07.2021) → hence time-barred
  • The notice lacked proper digital authentication (no date of signature)
  • Technical glitches cannot override statutory limitation requirements

Important Clarification by Court

  • Service of notice is crucial, not merely its date
  • Limitation provisions must be strictly complied with
  • Administrative/technical delays do not extend statutory timelines

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60821072023CW143262022_193838.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.