ABHINAV JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45, 1 DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17252/2025HC DelhiDLHC01088853202513 November 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding his share in the property sale or the validity of the Section 148A(d) order. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to upload the documents he intended to rely upon onto the respondents' portal for the Assessing Officer's consideration. The Court stated that if the petitioner had a grievance against the final order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, he could agitate the same in accordance with the law. No specific finding was made on the issues raised by the petitioner; the matter was disposed of procedurally.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abhinav Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner's grievance was that the respondents incorrectly depicted his liability concerning a property sale deed dated 30.05.2019, asserting his liability was only to the extent of his 1/8th share. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not responded to any notices and had failed to submit documents, such as a registered Sale Deed and Purchase Deed, to substantiate his claim, as noted by the Assessing Officer. The High Court directed the petitioner to upload supporting documents on the respondents' portal for the Assessing Officer's consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices for AY 2020-21 are liable to be quashed, and further proceedings restrained, in light of the petitioner's claim of limited liability to a 1/8th share in a property sale. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents had incorrectly calculated his tax liability concerning a property sale, asserting his actual liability was limited to his 1/8th share in the property sold via a Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner had not responded to any of the notices issued and had failed to submit necessary documents, including a registered Sale Deed and Purchase Deed, to substantiate his claim. The Assessing Officer had recorded this lack of substantiation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17252/2025 ABHINAV JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Ms Megha Jain, Mr Manish Sharma and Mr. Aditya Taneja, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45, 1 DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms Priyanka Jindal, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

13.11.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all consequential notices/proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21 including SCN dated 20.08.2025; b) Issue a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned order/SCN; c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2.

In fact the challenge is to the order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 16.04.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and also notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The submission of learned counsel for 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 21/11/2025 at 12:43:13

the petitioner is that the petitioner is liable to the extent of 1/8th share in the property, which was sold vide Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019 and not in the manner depicted by the respondents in the notices and order passed under Section 148A(d).

3.

Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC on the other hand submits that none of the notices issued by the respondents have been answered by the petitioner. According to him, appropriate shall be that the petitioner should upload on the portal the documents on which the petitioner intends to rely upon in support of his case. He has drawn our attention to page 89 of the paper book in support of his contention that the Assessing Officer (AO) has recorded that no registered Sale Deed and Purchase Deed to substantiate the claim has been submitted by the Assessee.

4.

In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the view that appropriate shall be for the petitioner to upload the documents which he intends to rely upon on the portal of the respondents for the consideration of the Assessing Officer.

5.

Surely, if the petitioner has grievance against the final order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, to agitate the same in accordance with law.

6.

The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 13, 2025 dd 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 21/11/2025 at 12:43:13

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →