Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.09.2025
KANODIA TECHNOPLAST LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rano Jain and Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Advs.
Through: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, SSC, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSC, Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSC, Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a. a writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Notice issued dated 28.08.2024 under section 148 of the Act. b. a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that the notice issued by the respondent is untrue and incorrect in its fact. c. Cost of present proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents d. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and the circumstances of the case.”
2. The present writ petition pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-
18. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice having been issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28.08.2024, the assessment proceedings are beyond the period of three years and also since the amount alleged to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs, the prayers are liable to be granted. The computation (part of Annexure-A of the petition) as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is reproduced as under: “…..
3. On analysis of the document, it appears that sales had been made amounting to more than Rs. 52,76,010/- (for AY: 2017-18) have been made, which appears to have escaped assessment. In this regard, it is to be noted, that such information appears to be "an entry or entries in the books of accounts" within the definition enumerated in section 149(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961. xxxx xxxx xxxx” It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the amounts at serial nos. 3 and 4, pertains to a different assessment years. They need to be excluded for computation. Similarly there is a duplication of the amount at serial no. 10 and 15, and only one figure has to be taken into consideration.
3. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, learned SSC has placed before us an E-mail dated 14.07.2025 received by him which we reproduce as under: “….In this regard, please note that the information has been re-examined in the light of the contention of the assessee. The claim of the assessee with respect to the information containing 2 invoices pertaining to another AY and duplication of an invoice in the information shared and thereby, reducing the total amount below Rs. 50 Lakhs, is found to be correct.” From the above, it is clear that the reassessment being beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and also, as the amount that escaped assessment is less then Rs.50 lakhs, the notice dated 28.08.2024 is liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. Any subsequent proceedings initiated shall also be set aside.
4. The petition is disposed of and pending application is dismissed as infructous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 rk