MS. SWATI VARMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6763/2023HC DelhiDLHC01019337202323 December 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, are liable to be set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute this position and conceded the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and this Court's own precedent in Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7864. These judgments established that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was not applicable to notices under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16, rendering the impugned notice invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and notice and disposed of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Swati Varmani, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order dated July 26, 2022, under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated May 25, 2022, under Section 148A(b). The assessment year in question is 2015-16. A key ground for challenge was that the Section 148 notice was barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act, with the time limit having expired on March 31, 2022. The revenue, represented by Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The notice issued under Section 148 is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act, as the time expired on March 31, 2022. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's stand regarding the limitation period. The revenue conceded the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and this Court's judgment in Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7864, which held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was not applicable to notices under Section 148 for AY 2015-16.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 6763/2023 $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 6763/2023 CM APPL. 26448/2023 MS. SWATI VARMANI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sahiba, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(a) issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction, order in the nature thereof quashing the impugned notice dt. 26.7.2022 under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961, order dt. 26.7.2022 under section 148A(d) and notice dt. 25.5.2022 under section 148A(b) and the proceedings consequent thereto and; (b) Grant an Ex-Parte stay upon any further proceeding, execution or enforcement of the notice u/s 148 of the Act and;”

2.

As noted from the petition, the same relates to Assessment Year 2015-

16.

One of the grounds of challenge is that the notice dated 26.07.2022 W.P. (C) 6763/2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is barred by limitation in terms of provisions under Section 149 of the Act, the time having expired on 31.03.2022. 3. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the stand taken by the petitioner in the petition.

4.

The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others, (2025) 476 ITR 369 (SC). Even this Court in the case of Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7864, following the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held as under:- “4. According to him, in the present case, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 22.07.2022 is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of 1961 Act.

5.

Since Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act' (TOLA)' 2020 was not applicable in respect to the notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as conceded by 2557/2023.”

5.

In view of the aforesaid position, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.07.2022 and also notice under Section 148 of the Act of the W.P. (C) 6763/2023 same date are set aside.

6.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of as having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 23, 2025/sr

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →