TIRUPATI CEMENT PRODUCTS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CERCLE 8 DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/19592/2025HC DelhiDLHC01106336202525 March 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated January 31, 2025, cannot be considered time-barred as contended by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of a search provides for an extended period of 10 years, thus curing the potential limitation issue. The Court further noted that the remaining arguments advanced by the petitioner fall within the realm of fact-finding inquiry, which is beyond the scope of its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the factual disputes. The operative direction was to dismiss both writ petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, JDM Infratech Pvt Ltd and Tirupati Cement Products, challenged notices dated January 31, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent reassessment proceedings. The assessment years in question are 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Revenue contended that the notices were issued pursuant to a search conducted on February 24, 2024, at the petitioner's premises, which allows for an extended reassessment period of 10 years. The petitioner argued that the notices were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment years. The petitioner also raised a point regarding the lack of material for AY 2017-18, to which the Revenue responded by mentioning a credit entry of Rs. 54,20,000/- for AY 2016-17.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated January 31, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are barred by limitation, considering the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Assessee's Contention: The notices are barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the statutory period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Revenue's Contention: The proceedings for reassessment were initiated based on a search conducted on February 24, 2024. Therefore, the extended period of 10 years under Section 148 of the Act is applicable, and there is no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction. The Revenue also stated that for AY 2016-17, there is a credit entry of Rs. 54,20,000/-. 2. Whether there is sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2017-18, given the petitioner's argument of no material for this year.

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) 19576/2025
W.P.(C) 19592/2025

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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 19576/2025 & 19592/2025 Page 1 of 3 $~4 & 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19576/2025 & CM APPL. 81804/2025 JDM INFRATECH PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms Surbhi Chandra, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CERCLE 8 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC. 5 + W.P.(C) 19592/2025 & CM APPL. 81901/2025 TIRUPATI CEMENT PRODUCTS .....Petitioner Through: Ms Surbhi Chandra, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CERCLE 8 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal SSC, Ms Monica Benjamin, Mr. Gibran Naushad JSCs, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

25.03.

2026

1.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.01.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) and subsequent 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 30/03/2026 at 16:16:26

W.P.(C) 19576/2025 & 19592/2025 proceedings in relation thereto.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice impugned in the present writ petition is barred by limitation, having been issued beyond a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18).

3.

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a search dated 24.02.2024 conducted at the petitioner’s premise.

4.

He further submitted that since proceedings for reassessment were initiated on the basis of a search, the extended period of 10 years is available to the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no infirmity in assumption of jurisdiction.

5.

At this point, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice is for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18, and even if the best case of the respondent is taken, then also, there is no material for AY 2017-18. 6. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions informed that for AY 2016-17 as well, there is a credit entry of Rs. 54,20,000/-.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned notice dated 31.01.2025 cannot be said to be time-barred as contended by the petitioner.

8.

The remaining arguments which learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced fall within the realm of fact finding inquiry, which this Court, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot undertake. 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 30/03/2026 at 16:16:26

W.P.(C) 19576/2025 & 19592/2025 9. Both the writ petitions are thus, dismissed.

10.

The pending applications are also disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. MARCH 25, 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 30/03/2026 at 16:16:26

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →