LAKSHAY CREATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60(7) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1503/2026HC DelhiDLHC01003559202603 February 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner had been consistently decided by the High Court in light of its judgment in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. The Court found it inappropriate to deviate from its established position. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also disposed of. The Court did not explicitly mention any issue left undecided, as the petition was dismissed on the basis of prior judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lakshay Creation, challenged a notice dated 10.04.2024 issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that while the High Court had held that an FAO could issue such notices, legislative intent, as indicated by a Bill and memorandum, suggested that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondent revenue contended that this issue was already decided by the High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and similar cases, and the petition should be dismissed. The petitioner further informed the court that an SLP challenging a previous High Court order dismissing their writ petition was pending before the Supreme Court, with an interim order allowing assessment proceedings to continue but staying recovery.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the alleged legislative intent that such notices should be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite High Court pronouncements, a Bill and its memorandum indicated a legislative intent for jurisdictional officers to issue Section 148 notices, implying the FAO's notice might be invalid. Revenue's Contention: The respondent submitted that the High Court had already settled this issue in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and subsequent orders, and therefore, the present petition should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1503/2026 CM APPL. 7345/2026 CM APPL. 7346/2026, CM APPL. 7347/2026 LAKSHAY CREATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Chaudhari, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60(7) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

03.02.

2026

1.

The petition in the present writ petition has challenged the notice dated 10.04.2024 which has been issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘FAO’) to the petitioner-assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Mr. Anand Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though this Court has held that the FAO can issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), there is a Bill in offing and a memorandum in respect thereof, shows that it was always the legislative intent that the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 shall be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

3.

Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the issue in hand has already 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 05/02/2026 at 12:37:11

been decided by this Court vide its judgment rendered in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi) and followed by various other orders, the present petition be dismissed.

4.

In rejoinder, Mr. Anand Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing W.P.(C) 15741/2025, the petitioner has preferred an SLP bearing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33649-33654/2025 which is pending for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and an interim order dated 24.11.2025 has been passed therein allowing the assessment proceedings to continue, however recovery has been stayed.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since all the petitions have been disposed of by this Court in light of the judgment rendered in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra), it will not be proper and just to take a view different from what has been consistently taken by this Court.

6.

The petition is thus, dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 3, 2026/MR

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 05/02/2026 at 12:37:11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →