ARUN GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29 (1), DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2660/2023HC DelhiDLHC01007046202323 July 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were clearly time-barred. The Court reasoned that the surviving period available to the assessing officer was 5 days from the date the petitioner filed their reply to the Section 148A(b) notice, which was June 13, 2022. Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d) ought to have been passed by June 18, 2022. However, the order was actually passed on July 26, 2022, which was beyond the permissible time limit. The Court found that the calculation of the surviving period, as per the principles laid down in Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal, supported the petitioner's claim. The ratio decidendi is that the period between the issuance of the original Section 148 notice and the expiry of the extended limitation under TOLA constitutes the surviving period for issuing subsequent notices under Section 148A, and if this period is exhausted, the subsequent proceedings are invalid. The Court quashed and set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Gupta, challenged proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An initial notice under Section 148 was issued on June 25, 2021. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on June 2, 2022, giving the petitioner two weeks to reply. The petitioner filed a reply on June 13, 2022. Subsequently, an order under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 were issued on July 26, 2022, and July 27, 2022, respectively. The petitioner contended these actions were without jurisdiction and time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on July 26, 2022, and July 27, 2022, respectively, are time-barred in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings, including the notice under Section 148, are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal and the Delhi High Court's decision in Delhi Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner contended that the surviving period, calculated as per paragraphs 107 and 108 of Rajeev Bansal, between the original Section 148 notice (June 25, 2021) and the expiry of extended limitation under TOLA (June 30, 2021), is only 5 days from the date of filing the reply to the Section 148A(b) notice (June 13, 2022). Therefore, the order and notice were time-barred. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel was not in a position to dispute the petitioner's position of facts and law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2660/2023 ARUN GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Aniket Khanduri, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29 (1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Advs. Mr. Devrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R %

23.07.

2026

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings including notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) are without juri iction and liable to be quashed in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) as elucidated by this Court in the case of Delhi Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. reported in 2026:DHC:2617-DB.

2.

Learned counsel submitted that the initial notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued on 25.06.2021, whereafter in pursuance 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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2023) 1 SCC 617, a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 02.06.2022, to which two weeks’ time was given to the petitioner to file reply i.e. by 16.06.2022. The reply was filed by the assessee on 13.06.2022 and thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 came to be issued on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, respectively.

3.

She argued that the remaining period, if calculated as per Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is apparent that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, respectively are clearly time barred as the surviving period has to be calculated in light of Para Nos. 107 and 108 of Rajeev Bansal (supra), which lays down that the number of days between date of issuance of original Section 148 notice and expiry of extended limitation under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain) Act, 2020 will be the surviving period.

4.

She informed that in the present case, the original Section 148 notice was issued on 25.06.2021 and the extended limitation under TOLA expired on 30.06.2021, and submitted that the surviving period will be of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed.

5.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, is not in a position to dispute this position of facts and law.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the factual and legal matrix, we are of the clear opinion that the surviving period left with the assessing officer was of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed (13.06.2026). Hence, the order under Section 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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

148A(d) of the Act of 1961 ought to have been passed latest by 18.06.2022, which as a matter of fact came to be passed on 26.07.2022. 7. The order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 are, therefore, clearly time barred, thus the same are hereby quashed and set aside.

8.

The writ petition stands allowed.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 23, 2026/nk

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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →