The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act and the impact of a stay order on the computation of limitation for reassessment proceedings.

ORDER :

(Yogendra Kumar Purohit, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee for quashing the impugned show cause notice/order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent No.2 and to restrain the respondents from taking any proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice/order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 20.03.2020 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (for short "the Act") to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner challenged the said notice dated 20.03.2020 before this Court by filing writ petition which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3479/2021, wherein by an interim order dated 24.02.2021 this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 20.03.2020. However, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023 in absence of the counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act, the limitation for passing the reassessment order after the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.3479/2021 had already expired on 12.05.2023. However, the respondent No.2 issued an intimation letter on 26.07.2023 in relation to the reassessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2013-14, which was replied by the petitioner on 30.7.2023 submitting therein that the said notice is barred by limitation.

4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued notice dated 21.08.2023 under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The petitioner by reply dated 26.08.2023 again raised the contention regarding expiry of limitation as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Act. A detailed reply was also filed by the petitioner on 28.8.2023. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 by the impugned show cause notice/order dated 27.09.2023 has arbitrarily rejected the ground of limitation raised by the petitioner without appreciating the provisions of law in correct perspective. Hence this writ petition.

5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply to the writ petition justifying their action in passing the impugned notice well within limitation.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The main argument of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of Section 153 (2) of the Act, no order of assessment/ reassessment or re-computation shall be made under Section 147 after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served, and such period of twelve months in the present case was expiring on 31.3.2021.

8. It is submitted that by virtue of stay order dated 24.02.2021 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/2021, the assessment proceedings remained in currency till its dismissal on 13.03.2023 and the said period from 24.02.2021 to 13.03.2023 was required to be excluded from computation of limitation as stipulated under Explanation 1 (ii) of Section 153 (2) of the Act. It is argued that as per proviso to Section 153 of the Act, immediately after exclusion of the period as per said Explanation 1 (ii), if the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation is less than sixty days, the same shall be deemed to be extended to sixty days. According to learned counsel, from the dismissal of the writ petition on 13.03.2023, sixty days’ time was available to the respondents for completing the reassessment proceedings and passing the order i.e. from 13.03.2023 to 12.05.2023 and therefore, the limitation for passing the reassessment order stood expired on 12.5.2023.

9. The petitioner has also claimed parity with the case of similarly situated assessee i.e. ASG Hospital Pvt. Ltd., wherein, according to the petitioner, the stand of the respondents was that the limitation in that case was expiring on 12.5.2023.

10. Accordingly, learned counsel for the