VEENA ARORA vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX - 12 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/22/2026HC DelhiDLHC01107696202505 January 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, specifically the excel sheet indicating a cash transaction, is sufficient to infer the escapement of income of the petitioner-assessee for the relevant assessment year. The Court noted that the language of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, post-April 1, 2021, does not even require the recording of a 'reason to believe,' let alone the possession of specific information or evidence. The Court stated that it is for the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that the basis for the notice is erroneous or that she has no nexus with the amount shown by Bhutani Infra Group and Associates. The Court concluded that the notice cannot be considered without jurisdiction or otherwise void. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to present her case before the respondents in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Veena Arora, filed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued on March 28, 2025. The petitioner argued that the notice was arbitrary and baseless, relying solely on an excel sheet found at the premises of ‘Bhutani Infra Group and Associates’ which indicated a cash transaction of Rs. 7,97,991/- involving the petitioner. The petitioner contended that without establishing a link to this transaction or other incriminating material, the Assessing Officer could not proceed. During the proceedings, the petitioner admitted to purchasing a flat from the said group, but maintained that this alone did not justify reassessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to the petitioner is arbitrary and without basis, particularly when the sole material relied upon is an excel sheet indicating a cash transaction? The petitioner argued that the notice is arbitrary and without basis, as the only material available is an excel sheet showing a cash transaction of Rs. 7,97,991/-. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer must establish a link between the petitioner and this transaction or present other incriminating material before initiating reassessment proceedings. The petitioner admitted to purchasing a flat from the builder but argued this fact alone does not warrant reassessment. The revenue did not present any arguments in the provided text.

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
W.P.(C) 22/2026 Page 1 of 2 $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th January, 2026. + W.P.(C) 22/2026 VEENA ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Mr. Rajeev Deora, Mr. Shiv Nath Bind, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX - 12 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on 28.03.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice is arbitrary and without any basis.

3.

Inviting Court’s attention towards Annexure A-2 appended to the aforesaid notice, he asserted that except for the excel sheet, which was found at premises of ‘Bhutani Infra Group and Associates’ in which the petitioner’s name reflecting a cash transaction of Rs.7,97,991/- was mentioned, there is no other material. It was argued that unless the Assessing Officer is able to establish a link of the petitioner with that transaction or is able to bring on record any other incriminating material, he cannot proceed against the petitioner. W.P.(C) 22/2026

4.

During the course of submissions, pursuant to Court’s query, learned counsel admitted the factum of petitioner’s purchasing a flat from said group. He, nevertheless, argued that simply because the petitioner had purchased a flat from the said builder, reassessment proceeding against her cannot be initiated.

5.

Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the material, which has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer, is enough to infer escapement of income of the petitioner-assessee in the relevant assessment year. Language of section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021, does not even require recording reason to believe much less possession of information or evidence.

6.

Be that as it may. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that the basis is erroneous or that she has no nexus with the amount, which has been shown by the said Bhutani Infra Group and Associates.

7.

The notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or otherwise void.

8.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

9.

Needless to mention that any observations made herein may not influence or affect the rights of either of the parties and the petitioner shall be free to put up her case before the respondents in accordance with law.

DINESH MEHTA (JUDGE)

VINOD KUMAR (JUDGE) JANUARY 5, 2026/ck

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →