TAMARA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14417/2026HC DelhiDLHC01046881202605 October 2026Author: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2026, issued under Section 148A(1), the order passed under Section 148A(3), and the consequential notice dated June 29, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that these actions were without jurisdiction. The Court explicitly reserved the right of the competent authority to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the law if deemed expedient. It also preserved the assessee's right to raise all permissible defenses before the Assessing Officer and to agitate all grounds, even those raised in the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed along with pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tamara Private Limited, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2026, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order passed under Section 148A(3) and a consequential notice dated June 29, 2026, issued under Section 148. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), New Delhi, lacked jurisdiction because the assessee is a foreign company. The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted this fact on instructions, stating the notice appeared to have been issued inadvertently.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2026 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notice dated 29.06.2026 under Section 148 of the Act, are liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), New Delhi, did not have the jurisdiction to issue the notice as the assessee is a foreign company. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, on instructions, accepted the fact that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction and submitted that the notice appeared to have been issued inadvertently.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010468812026 + W.P.(C) 14417/2026, CM APPL. 67509-67511/2026 TAMARA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Nikhil Agarwal & Mr. Nishank Vasishtha, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC, Mr. Pratyuksh Gupta, JSC & Ms. Lopamudra Mahapatra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

05.10.

2026

1.

By way of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) impugning notice dated 30.03.2026 issued under Section 148A(1) so also the order passed under Section 148A(3) and consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 dated 29.06.2026. 2. Mr. Nikhil Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice is liable to be set aside on the ground of juri iction itself, inasmuch as the issuing authority, namely, Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1) New Delhi, does not have the juri iction to issue notice as the assessee is a 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 08/10/2026 at 12:02:36

foreign company.

3.

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, accepted such fact and submitted that the same appears to have been issued inadvertently.

4.

The impugned notice dated 30.03.2026 under Section 148A(1) so also the order passed under Section 148A(3) and corresponding notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, dated 29.06.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside being without juri iction.

5.

Needless to observe that competent authority’s right to issue fresh notice in accordance with law (if deemed expedient) shall stand reserved and similarly assessee’s right to take all permissible defence before the AO and all grounds even if raised in this petition shall be open to be agitated.

6.

Writ petition stands allowed along with pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. OCTOBER 5, 2026/sid

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 08/10/2026 at 12:02:36

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →