DEEPA BHATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45 1 DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1164/2026HC DelhiDLHC01002568202603 February 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754. The revenue's counsel could not dispute this position. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 18.07.2022, the order dated 02.12.2025, and any proceedings in furtherance thereof were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court should follow it and grant relief accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepa Bhatia, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 18.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 02.12.2025 that disposed of her objection to this notice. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(1), Delhi, and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice, the filing of an objection by the petitioner, and the subsequent order disposing of that objection, all of which are now under challenge. The amount in dispute is not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 18.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential order dated 02.12.2025 are valid and sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754. The revenue, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

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
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1164/2026, CM APPL. 5714/2026 STAY, CM APPL. 5715/2026 DEEPA BHATIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Ms Soniya Dodeja and Mr. Sparsh Kapoor, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45 1 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr SC with Ms Priya Sarkar, Jr SC and Mr. Rohit Chakraborty Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 03.02.2026

O R D E R

1.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order dated 02.12.2025, disposing of petitioner’s objection against filed qua such notice.

2.

Mr. Nischay Kantoor, learned counsel for petitioner at the outset argued that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754. 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 06/02/2026 at 13:10:30

3.

Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

4.

Petition is, therefore, allowed.

5.

The impugned notice dated 18.07.2022 so also the order dated 02.12.2025 and proceedings in furtherance thereof (if any) are hereby quashed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026/dd

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 06/02/2026 at 13:10:30

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →