THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. VRINDA FARMS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/532/2026HC DelhiDLHC01029708202611 August 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 31.03.2023. Consequently, the relevant Assessment Year for this notice is AY 2023-24. The Court found that a notice issued for AY 2012-13, when the notice itself was issued in AY 2023-24, is clearly beyond the period of 10 years. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's order was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148A in a subsequent AY cannot revive or extend the limitation period for a prior AY if it falls outside the prescribed time limits for that prior AY.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -1) appealed against an order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 4694/Del/2024 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The respondent assessee, Vrinda Farms Pvt. Ltd., argued that the impugned notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable for AY 2012-13. The respondent contended that the issue was covered by this Court's judgment in Pr. CIT (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. The Revenue's counsel could not dispute the facts. The High Court noted that the impugned notice under Section 148A was issued on 31.03.2023, making the relevant AY 2023-24. Therefore, a notice concerning AY 2012-13 issued in AY 2023-24 would be beyond 10 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13, is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing for AY 2012-13? Assessee's Contention: The respondent assessee argued that the impugned notice was beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2012-13). They relied on the judgment of this Court in Pr. CIT (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The appellant/Department's counsel could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 149,Section 153A,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010297082026 + ITA 532/2026 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta and Mr. Anant Mann JSCs. versus VRINDA FARMS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anupinder Jassal and Mr. Ujwal Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R % 11.08.2026

1.

By way of present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), the Revenue has challenged the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4694/Del/2024 for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2012-13. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset argued that the impugned notice is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2012-13).

3.

He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is 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 13/08/2026 at 11:21:56

squarely covered by judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Pr. CIT (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd., [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi)/[2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).

4.

Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Needless to mention that since the impugned notice under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 was issued on 31.03.2023, the relevant AY is 2023-24. Therefore, the notice impugned issued qua AY 2012-13 is clearly beyond the period of 10 years, if calculated backward from AY 2023-24. 7. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 11, 2026/nd 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 13/08/2026 at 11:21:56

More judgments on Section 149

All 1,766 judgments and leading authorities on Section 149 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →