DEEPAK NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 7, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4309/2026HC DelhiDLHC01013123202602 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue of limitation is a fundamental jurisdictional aspect that requires examination by the AO. Despite the revenue's contention that the ground of limitation was not raised before the AO, the Court found that since the petitioner approached the Court before the assessment order was passed, the writ petitions could be entertained. The Court, relying on the judgment in Dinesh Jindal's case, concluded that the notices issued on 31.08.2024 were clearly beyond the prescribed period of ten years for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 31.08.2024, consequential demand assessment orders dated 31.03.2026, and any notice of demand or penalty stood quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a jurisdictional issue of limitation, if apparent on the face of the record and raised before the appellate or writ court before finalization of assessment, can be considered even if not raised before the AO, especially when it pertains to the validity of the reassessment notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Nagar, filed two writ petitions challenging notices dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner argued that these notices were time-barred. The respondent-Department contended that assessment proceedings had concluded on 31.03.2026 with the passing of assessment orders and that the ground of limitation was not raised before the Assessing Officer (AO). The petitions were filed on 26.03.2026, prior to the passing of the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 are barred by limitation, considering the judgment in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax? Assessee's contention: The notices are clearly barred by limitation, even if the extended period of ten years is invoked, as they became time-barred in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors. NC 2024:DHC:4554-DB dated 27.05.2024. Revenue's contention: The assessment proceedings culminated on 31.03.2026 with the passing of assessment orders, and the assessee should avail the available remedy. The ground of limitation was not raised before the AO and therefore cannot be raised now.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 4308/2026
W.P.(C) 4309/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Page 1 of 3

$~56 & 57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4308/2026 CM APPL. 20991/2026 CM APPL. 20992/2026 + W.P.(C) 4309/2026 CM APPL. 20993/2026 CM APPL. 20994/2026

DEEPAK NAGAR

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advs.

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

CIRCLE - 1 7, DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Memon, Mr. Rahul Singh, Ms Priya Sarkar JSCs and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

1.

These writ petitions lay challenge to notices dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) and consequential proceedings thereof for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16. O R D E R %

02.04.2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the notices, which were issued on 31.08.2024 are clearly barred by limitation because, even if the extended period of ten years is invoked, the same have become time barred in light of the judgment of this Court in the case Dinesh Jindal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 13:16:24

Page 2 of 3

v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors. NC 2024:DHC:4554-DB decided on 27.05.2024. 3. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department, on the other hand, submitted that on 31.03.2026, the assessment proceedings have been culminated by the Assessing Officer (AO) and assessment orders have been passed and therefore, the assessee should avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law. 4. He further submitted that the ground of limitation which the petitioner has taken before this Court was never raised before the AO and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be raised. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the prima facie view that the issue of limitation being a fundamental jurisdictional aspect is required to be examined by the AO himself on the basis of statute or judicial precedence. May be the assessee has not taken this plea but since he had approached this Court on 26.03.2026 i.e. before the assessment order was passed, we are of the view that the writ petitions can be entertained and merely because an assessment order has been passed, petitioner’s right to raise jurisdictional issue and invocation of writ jurisdiction cannot be denied. 6. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, accordingly to us, in light of Dinesh Jindal’s (supra), the notice issued on 31.08.2024 was clearly beyond the prescribed period of ten years, (if counted from 31.08.2024) as far as AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 is concerned. Both these writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. 7. The impugned notices dated 31.08.2024 so also consequential demand assessment orders dated 31.03.2026, notice of demand so also notice of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 13:16:24

Page 3 of 3

penalty, if any, stand quashed. 8. The pending application(s) stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 2, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 13:16:24

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →