AKC RETAILERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1606/2023HC DelhiDLHC01003793202310 December 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to evaluate the individual show cause notices (SCNs) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, Naveen Kumar Gupta, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. The AO is to examine the issue of the surviving period for each noticee under Section 148, guided by the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, the AO must pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the impact of these judgments on the impugned reassessment notices. This order will determine whether the notices survive or are liable to be recalled. The petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any adverse orders. The pending application was disposed of as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, AKC Retailers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated May 27, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated July 22, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, initiating reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148, dated July 22, 2022, was issued beyond the period of six years, which expired on June 17, 2022. The petitioner relied on a summary chart detailing the timeline of notices and the computation of limitation as per Supreme Court decisions. The High Court referred to its previous judgments in Kanwaljeet Kaur, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 22, 2022, for AY 2013-14, was issued beyond the period of six years, which expired on June 17, 2022, thereby rendering it invalid. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148, dated July 22, 2022, was issued beyond the period of six years, which expired on June 17, 2022, making it invalid. The assessee relied on the judgment in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 605, and a summary chart detailing the limitation period. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 149,Section 151,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 1606/2023 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision : 10.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 1606/2023 CM APPL. 6101/2023

AKC RETAILERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra

Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh,

JSC and Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(I) writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, quashing notice dated 27.05.2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟); (II) writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Act, and the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14, and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto”

W.P.(C) 1606/2023 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.07.2022 which is relatable to the assessment year 2013-14 has been passed beyond the period of six years, which expired on 17.06.2022. 3. According to him, the issue in hand is covered by the judgment in the case of Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 605. He has also placed before us a summary chart, which reads as under:- “A. Key Facts:

S. No PARTICULARS DATE Relevant Pg./ Ann No. of HC appeal

1.

Notice issued under section 148 (old regime 24.06.2021 16

2.

Letter communicating information pursuant to SC decision in Ashish Agarwal – reply to be filed by 10.06.2022 27.05.2022 55-57/ ‘ A ‘

3.

Reply filed by Petitioner 09.06.2022 164-195/ ‘K’

4.

Order u/s 148A (d) 22.07.2022 58-62/ ‘B’

5.

Notice issued u/s 148 – Sanction obtained from PCCIT 22.07.2022 63-65/ ‘C’

B. COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF UOI VS. RAJEEV BANSAL: S.No.

SC Paras

1.

Assessment Year 2013-2014

2.

Period of limitation u/s 149 [3 years or 6 years] 6 years

3.

Original Period of limitation u/s 31.03.2020

W.P.(C) 1606/2023 149

4.

Extended period of limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA 30.06.20211 Paras 65-69

5.

Date of original notice u/s 148 – deemed SCN u/s 148A(b) 24.06.2021

6.

Time surviving from date of issuance of deemed SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA [ from 24.06.2021] 6 days Paras 109- 113

7.

Extended to 7 days as per proviso to section 149 7 days

8.

Period of deemed stay to be excluded as per 3rd proviso to section 149 [ Date of Original 148 till date allowed to file reply to assessee[ 24.06.2021 To 10.06.2022 Paras 105- 107

9.

Last date for issuing notice u/s 148 [i.e., 10.06.2022+7 days] 17.06.2022 Para 77

10.

Actual date of issuance of notice u/s 148 22.07.2022

11.

Notice u/s 148 issued under new regime is beyond the period of 6 years which expired on 17.06.2022. Para 77

4.

Suffice to state that the issue at hand in the present petition needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 as well as this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 481. 5. Additionally, we may reproduce paragraphs 27 to 29 of the judgment in the case of Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra) as under:- “27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, W.P.(C) 1606/2023 Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search.

28.

A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram.

29.

The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.”

6.

In the light of the paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra), as decided by this Court on an identical issue, we dispose of the writ petition. The pending application is disposed of as having become infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/sr

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →