M/S UCB DEVELOPERS LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/18201/2025HC DelhiDLHC01095919202514 January 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and the consequential proceedings. The Court found that the notice issued for AY 2015-16 was clearly barred by limitation. The Court noted that the 148A(b) notice was issued on 12.08.2024, followed by a notice under Section 148A(d) on 31.08.2024. Counting 10 years backward from the date of issuance of the notice (31.08.2024), the relevant period would be AY 2016-17, not AY 2015-16. The Court reiterated the reasoning provided in the Division Bench judgments of Dinesh Jindal and Pankaj Jain, emphasizing that the facts in the present case were identical to Pankaj Jain, with only a minor, insignificant difference in the date of notice issuance. Therefore, the principle applied in Pankaj Jain was directly applicable. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s UCB Developers LLP, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024, and 17.06.2025, and the consequent proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the impugned notices were barred by limitation as per the second proviso to Section 149 of the Act, exceeding the prescribed 10-year period. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's judgments in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, asserting that the facts in Pankaj Jain were identical to the present case, with only a minor difference in the date of notice issuance. The revenue's counsel attempted to distinguish the facts but was unsuccessful.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation as per the second proviso to Section 149 of the Act of 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the impugned notices were clearly barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the prescribed period of 10 years, as stipulated by the second proviso to Section 149 of the Act of 1961. The assessee relied on the Delhi High Court judgments in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that the facts in Pankaj Jain were identical to the present case, specifically concerning AY 2015-16, with only an insignificant difference in the date of notice issuance (30.08.2024 in Pankaj Jain vs. 31.08.2024 in the present case). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel attempted to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts in Pankaj Jain (supra) but was unable to do so.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18201/2025, CM APPL. 75275/2025 M/S UCB DEVELOPERS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar & Mr. Mohan Chaudhary, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

14.01.

2026

1.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notices dated 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024 & 17.06.2025 so also the consequent proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), by the respondents for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is clearly barred by limitation as per second proviso to Section 149 of the Act of 1961, inasmuch as the same is beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 10 years. He relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of 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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23

this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 12091/2023 titled Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors. decided on 27.05.2024 so also the judgment rendered in the W.P.(C) 317/2025 titled Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr. decided on 14.01.2025. 3. Taking the Court through the judgment of Pankaj Jain (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts therein are exactly identical to the facts involved in the present case inasmuch as the relevant AY in both the cases is 2015-16. The only change, which too has no bearing on the case is that in the case of Pankaj Jain (supra), the notice was issued on 30.08.2024 while in the instant case the same was issued on 31.08.2024. 4. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned SSC for the respondents-Department though tried to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts involved in Pankaj Jain (supra), but he could not.

5.

Even without referring to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the basic provision contended, i.e. the second proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act of 1961 is taken into consideration, in the factual background of the present case, it is clear that 148A(b) notice was issued on 12.08.2024, whereafter, notice under Section 148A(d) came to be issued on 31.08.2024 for the AY 2025-26. 6. Needless to record that the assessment year in which the notice dated 31.08.2024 was issued is, 2025-26. If period of 10 years backwards is counted, then the same would naturally be, the AY 2016-17. As has been explained by the Division Bench in judgment in the case of Dinesh Jindal (supra), so also Pankaj Jain (supra).

7.

Hence, notice dated 31.08.2024 issued for AY 2015-16 is clearly 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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23

barred by limitation.

8.

If the facts of Pankaj Jain (supra) are considered, they are exactly identical to the present case, with a minor but insignificant difference. (in the case of the Pankaj Jain (supra) the notice was issued on 30.08.2024 while the notice in the case in hands was issued on 31.08.2024)

9.

In view of the discussions foregoing, the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 so also the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside.

10.

All the pending applications are disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JANUARY 14, 2026/sr

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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →