W.P.(C)/6154/2023 of GAIN CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%Date of Decision : 28.05.2025

+W.P.(C) 6154/2023

GAIN CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr Ruchesh Sinha, Ms MonalisaMaity, Mr Aakash Saini, and MsShilpa Chaudhary, Advocates.versusMaity, Mr Aakash Saini, and MsShilpa Chaudhary, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through:Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms MonicaBenjaminandMs EashaKadian,JSCs for the Revenue.BenjaminandMs EashaKadian,JSCs for the Revenue.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL 32480/2025(early hearing)

1.For the reasons stated in the application, the early hearing is allowed.

2.The petition is taken up for hearing today.

3.The hearing scheduled on 11.09.2025 is cancelled.

4.The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6154/2023

5.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 25.07.2022 [impugned order] passed under Section 148A(d) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] along with the notice dated 27.07.2022order dated 25.07.2022 [impugned order] passed under Section 148A(d) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] along with the notice dated 27.07.2022

[impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Act and furtherproceedings in respect of assessment year [AY] 2015-16.

6.The petitioner is company and had filed its return of income for theAY 2015-16 on 22.09.2015, declaring loss.

7.The Assessing Officer [AO] issued notice dated 30.06.2021 underSection 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2015-16.Although the said notice was issued after 31.03.2021, the procedure asprescribed under Section 148A of the Act was not followed, as the noticewas premised on the provisions relating to reassessment as were in forceprior to 31.03.2021.

8.Thereafter, by communication dated 16.05.2022, the AO referred tothe decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. AshishAgarwal: (2022) 444 ITR 1 and forwarded certain information, which,according to the AO, suggested that the petitioner’s income had escapedassessment. The said communication also mentioned that in terms of theaforementioned decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal(supra), the notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act wasdeemed to be notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitionerresponded to the said notice on 01.06.2022.

9.The AO passed an order dated 25.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) ofthe Act holding that it was fit case for issuance of notice under Section148 of the Act in respect of AY 2015-16. The said order was forwarded tothe petitioner along with notice dated 27.07.2022 issued under Section 148of the Act.

10.The petitioner contends that the proceedings initiated pursuant to theimpugned notice dated 27.07.2022 are required to be set aside in view of the

concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754.

11.It is relevant to refer to paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) from the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra),which sets out the concession as made on behalf of the Revenue:

“e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 doesnot expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLAapplies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is readwith TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation asexplained in the tabulation below:

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, allnotices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped asthey will not fall for completion during the period prescribed underTOLA;”

12.In view of the above concession, the impugned notice and theproceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We may also notethe decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v.Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.: Civil Appeal No.5177/2025,decided on 02.04.2025. The said appeal arose from orders passed by theHon’ble High Court of Orissa and Cuttack declining to entertain batch ofpetitions filed by the Assessees. The attention of the Supreme Court wasdrawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Union of India& Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Courtallowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set outbelow:

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usualfairness invited the attention of this Court to three judge benchdecision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal,reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph19(f) which reads thus:-

“19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to bedropped as they will not fall for completion during the periodprescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation andAmendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.”

5. As the revenue made concession in the aforesaid decision that isfor the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1stApril, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall forcompletion during the period prescribed under the taxation and otherlaws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020).

Signature Not Verified

Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as thenotices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated25.6.2021.

6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to abovethe original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttackstands allowed.”

13.The notice dated 27.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Actstands quashed and set aside. Concededly, the controversy is covered infavour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Makemytrip IndiaPvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi &Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:1892-DB.

14.The petition is, accordingly, allowed and all proceedings initiatedpursuant thereto are set aside.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J

MAY 28, 2025M

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 6154/2023