DR. RAJEEV DHAVAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10000/2024HC DelhiDLHC01042177202431 October 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 set aside the order dated 10.05.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 10.05.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that a communication from Canara Bank needed to be considered. The Assessing Officer is directed to take this communication into account and provide a hearing to the petitioner or their representative. The entire exercise is to be completed within eight weeks. All pleas of the petitioner are left open to be canvassed before the Assessing Officer. No specific finding was made on the validity of the original order or notice, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.05.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 10.05.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, both by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, concerning Assessment Year 2017-18. The impugned order was based on the assertion that an amount of Rs. 37,00,19,954/- was deposited in the assessee's bank account. The petitioner contended that the actual deposit was Rs. 5,76,500/-. The respondents, represented by the Revenue, stated that a communication from Canara Bank needed to be considered by the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid, considering the discrepancy in the amount of deposit alleged by the Revenue and contended by the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148A and Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount deposited in the bank account was Rs. 5,76,500/-, not Rs. 37,00,19,954/- as stated by the Revenue, implying a factual error in the basis of the impugned order and notice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that a communication from Canara Bank needed to be considered by the Assessing Officer, suggesting that the matter required further examination and a fresh order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10000/2024 CM APPL. 40952/2024 DR. RAJEEV DHAVAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Drona Negi and Mr. Devvrat Tiwari, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Sr SC with Ms Priya Sarkar, Mr Viplav Acharya, Jr SCs, and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari and Mr. Anugrah Dwivedi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

31.10.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of impugned order dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed under/s. 148 A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 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 06/11/2025 at 13:17:45

“Act” ) and the impugned notice dated 10.05.2024 issued under s. 148 of the Act (Annexure P-1 ) , both by Respondent No. 1 in respect of Assessment Year 2017- 18; and/ or b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s ) restraining the Respondents, their agents, successors, subordinates, etc. from proceeding with the consequential re-assessment proceedings; and / or”

2.

The notice under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has been issued by stating that an amount of Rs. 37,00,19,954/- has been deposited in the assessee’s bank account.

3.

Reply to the said notice was given by the petitioner and an order under 148A (d) of the Act was passed on 10.05.2024, The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is by drawing our attention to page 46 to contend that the amount deposited in the account was Rs.5,76,500/- and not what is contended by the Revenue.

4.

Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the communication received from the Canara Bank need to be considered by the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order.

5.

If that be so, we set aside the order dated 10.05.2024 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass a fresh order taking into consideration the communication, received from the Canara Bank by giving a hearing to the petitioner or his representative on the date and time, to be informed to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks as an outer limit. All pleas of the petitioner are left open to be canvassed before the Assessing Officer. 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 06/11/2025 at 13:17:45

6.

The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J OCTOBER 31, 2025 cd 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 06/11/2025 at 13:17:45

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →