Facts
The petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, dated 15.04.2024 and 06.04.2024, arguing they were time-barred.
Source reference: p. 2, para 1For BKR Capital, a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 21.03.2024.
Source reference: p. 2, para 3The petitioner sought multiple adjournments on 28.03.2024 and 08.04.2024, eventually filing a reply on 13.04.2024.
Source reference: p. 2, para 3-4The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the objections under Section 148A(d) and issued the impugned Section 148 notice on 15.04.2024.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The petitioners contended that the six-year limitation period under the first proviso to Section 149(1) expired on 31.03.2024.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 5Issues
Whether the notice dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2017-18 is barred by limitation.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 14Law Applied
The Court applied Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021).
Source reference: no citationThe First Proviso to Section 149(1) stipulates that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued for AYs beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice was already time-barred under the old law (six years).
Source reference: p. 6, 11, para 13, 19The Fifth Proviso to Section 149(1) provides for the exclusion of time allowed to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) when computing limitation.
Source reference: p. 6, 11, para 13, 21The Court distinguished *Manju Somani v. ITO* regarding statutory exclusions.
Source reference: p. 12, para 27The Court distinguished *Raminder Singh v. ACIT* regarding composite limitation frameworks.
Source reference: p. 4, para 11Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the Section 148A(b) notice was issued on 21.03.2024, the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the six-year limitation period ending 31.03.2024.
Source reference: p. 10-11, para 15, 19The court rejected the petitioners' narrow interpretation of the First Proviso, holding that the "limitation framework" must be read harmoniously with the Fifth Proviso.
Source reference: p. 4, para 12It was observed that the delay in issuing the final Section 148 notice was directly attributable to the adjournments sought by the petitioners on 28.03.2024 and 08.04.2024.
Source reference: p. 10, para 16Consequently, the period between 28.03.2024 (original reply date) and 15.04.2024 (date of order/notice) must be excluded from the limitation clock.
Source reference: p. 13, para 30The Court further noted that a contrary view would penalize AOs for granting fair hearings, thereby defeating the purpose of Section 148A.
Source reference: p. 12, para 26Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned notices were valid and within limitation.
The Court concluded that the period consumed due to the petitioners' requests for adjournments stands excluded under the Fifth Proviso to Section 149, meaning the AO acted within jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 13, para 29-30The challenge to the notices for being void ab-initio was rejected.
Source reference: no citationOriginal Court PDF
BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1, Delhi [W.P.(C) 19738/2025 & W.P.(C) 19769/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in