TMEN SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25 -1, DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17885/2025HC DelhiDLHC01093899202526 November 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, directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) to make all submissions, both on facts and in law. The Court noted that the petition was filed after more than one and a half years from the date of the order (April 12, 2024) and the notice under Section 142(1) (July 21, 2025). The AO was directed to consider these submissions and proceed in accordance with the law. This decision was made in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598. The Court did not decide the merits of the allegations regarding the vagueness of the notices or the validity of the order under Section 148A(d). The operative direction is for the petitioner to appear before the AO.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, TMEN Systems Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices dated March 21, 2024, under Section 148A(b) and an order dated April 12, 2024, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with a notice dated April 12, 2024, under Section 148. These actions were taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25-1, Delhi, for reopening assessment for AY 2020-21. The petitioner sought more time to reply to the Section 148A(b) notice, which was extended. However, the petitioner's reply was filed late, on April 28, 2024. The petitioner contended that the notices were vague and lacked information, particularly regarding a sum of Rs. 3,16,00,000/-, and that the order under Section 148A(d) was based on a verification report unrelated to them. The Revenue argued that the petition was filed over 1.5 years after the order and notice, and the petitioner was evading providing proper replies.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated March 21, 2024 (under Section 148A(b)) and April 12, 2024 (under Section 148) issued by the respondent for reopening assessment for AY 2020-21 are vague, scanty, and non-specific, violating the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the order dated April 12, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is without authority and jurisdiction, based on a verification report that has no nexus with the petitioner. Assessee's Contentions: The notices under Section 148A(b) are vague, scanty, and non-specific, lacking information suggesting escapement of income. The order under Section 148A(d) is based on a verification report unrelated to the petitioner. The petitioner sought more time to file a reply and stated an inability to reconcile the figure of Rs. 3,16,00,000/- due to the lack of a party-wise breakup. The petitioner also cited violations of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India. Revenue's Contentions: The petition has been filed approximately one and a half years after the passing of the order and issuance of the notice. The petitioner is evading a proper reply and has not furnished information sought under Section 142(1). It is appropriate for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and provide all information and make submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17885/2025 TMEN SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Divyanshi Singh and Mr. Dhruv Dev Gupta, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25 -1, DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

26.11.

2025

1.

The matter is taken up today as the date fixed, i.e. 25.11.2025 was declared a holiday pursuant to Notification No.35/G-4/Genl-I/DHC dated 24.11.2025, issued by this Court.

2.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers : “a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Notices dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of ITA, 1961 by Respondent No. 1 reopening assessment for AY 2020-21, without authority and jurisdiction, in violation of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India; b. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and Notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of ITA, 1961, of ITA, 1961 by Respondent No. 1 initiating 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:40

reassessment proceedings for AY 2020-21, without authority and jurisdiction, in violation of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India;”

3.

In substance, the challenge is to a notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act) for re-opening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2020-21 and also the order passed on 12.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act.

4.

Pursuant to notice under Section 148A(b) dated 21.03.2024, the assessee had sought 15 days’ time to file a reply vide letter dated 28.03.2024. This made the respondent issue a further notice on 29.03.2024 granting time to the petitioner to file reply on or before 10.04.2024. It is noted that a reply was filed on 28.04.2024, i.e. beyond the date of 10.04.2024. 5. Be that as it may, even in this reply, the assessee had sought 15 days’ time and also stated that the respondents have not given party-wise breakup of the amount of Rs.3,16,00,000/- to the petitioner/assessee and in that sense it is unable to reconcile the figure of Rs.3,16,00,000/- from their books of accounts. In any case, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the respondents on 12.04.2024 followed by a notice under Section 148 of the Act.

6.

Pursuant thereto, the notice dated 21.07.2025, was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer seeking information as per the Annexure annexed therewith. It is the submission that pursuant thereto, the present petition has been filed, the notice under Section 148A(b) 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:40

of the Act is vague, scanty and non-specific in complete absence of information suggesting escapement of any income chargeable to Tax. That apart it is the submission, that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 12.04.2024, based on the verification report which has no nexus with the petitioner.

7.

On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel, is that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 12.04.2024 and the petition has been filed on 23.09.2025, almost one and half years of the passing of the order/issuance of notice. That apart, it is his submission that on one hand the petitioner had filed a brief reply seeking further time to file a reply but on the other, has alleged that in the absence of any information furnished by the AO in respect of the 126 entities, they are unable to file a detailed reply to the same.

8.

According to him, in the given facts, when the petitioner is evading to give a proper reply and also till date has not furnished information as sought under Section 142(1) of the Act, it is appropriate for the petitioner to appear before the AO and give all the information and make his submissions to the satisfaction of the AO.

9.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that given the nature of facts, that arises for consideration in the petition and the petition having been filed after more than one and half years from the date of order i.e. 12.04.2024, and even the notice dated 21.07.2024 under Section 142(1) of the Act which got triggered only because of passing of the order under Section 148A(d), appropriate for the petitioner is to appear before the AO to make all submissions, both on facts and in law for the consideration of the AO. When such submissions are 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:40

made, the AO shall consider the same and proceed in accordance with law. This we say in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC

598.10.

The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 26, 2025 ss 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:40

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →