DESPECTO REALTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) DELHI AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1179/2026HC DelhiDLHC01002587202628 January 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 held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was fundamentally without jurisdiction due to being barred by limitation, as established in the Manju Somani case. The Court found that directing the petitioner to file objections before the AO and await the proceedings would not serve the ends of justice, given the jurisdictional defect. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued without jurisdiction, particularly when it is demonstrably barred by limitation as per established precedent, warrants immediate intervention by the High Court, bypassing the usual appellate or revisional remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Despecto Realtors India Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice was barred by limitation, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Manju Somani v Income Tax Officer Ward 70(1) & Ors. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) Delhi and others, did not dispute the factual and legal position regarding limitation but raised objections concerning the petition's delay of over 18 months and the availability of remedies before the Assessing Officer (AO).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation, as per the ruling in Manju Somani v Income Tax Officer Ward 70(1) & Ors? Assessee's Contention: The notice is clearly barred by limitation, as held by this Court in Manju Somani (supra). Revenue's Contention: The petition suffers from a delay of more than 18 months, and the petitioner has the right to raise the plea of limitation before the Assessing Officer (AO).

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
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1179/2026 & CM APPL. 5762/2026 DESPECTO REALTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 28.01.2026

O R D E R

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 31.08.2024, which has been issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is clearly barred by limitation as has been held by this Court in the case of Manju Somani v Income Tax Officer Ward 70(1) & Ors, NC:2024:DHC:5411-DB.

2.

Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents though could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law, however raised an objection that the petition suffers from delay of more than 18 months and further that the petitioner has every right available to raise this plea before the Assessing Officer (AO). 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 31/01/2026 at 14:53:45

3.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is fundamentally without jurisdiction, as has been held by this Court in Manju Somani (supra), asking the petitioner to file objections before the AO and wait for culmination of proceedings will not serve the ends of justice.

4.

Writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

5.

The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and proceedings in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed.

6.

Pending applications, if any are also disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J JANUARY 28, 2026/cd

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 31/01/2026 at 14:53:45

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →