LOGIX HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15802/2025HC DelhiDLHC01078835202529 October 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi, in its order dated October 29, 2025, decided to set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated June 30, 2025. The Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and permit the petitioner to produce all relevant documents supporting its stand. Subsequently, the AO is to pass a fresh and reasoned order. The Court specified that this exercise should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The principle derived is that where an AO fails to consider a crucial objection raised by the assessee, particularly concerning prior adjudication of the same issue, the proceedings may be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Logix Heights Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated June 30, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3), along with a consequent notice dated June 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act. These actions pertain to Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to consider its specific objections in the impugned order. The objections highlighted that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of alleged non-genuine transactions with M/s Mekaster Finlease Limited, an issue that had already been examined and decided in prior reassessment proceedings for the same year, resulting in an addition of Rs. 22,82,85,479/-. The petitioner requested complete information regarding the impugned sum of Rs. 27,72,53,102/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) and the order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the objections raised by the assessee regarding prior adjudication of the same issue. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider its specific plea that the issue of alleged non-genuine transactions with M/s Mekaster Finlease Limited, amounting to Rs. 27,72,53,102/-, had already been examined and decided in previous reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20, vide an order dated March 17, 2025. The assessee argued that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 cannot be initiated for an issue already examined under Section 143(3) or Section 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested complete information regarding the impugned sum. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, did not contest the contention made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 15802/2025 $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision : 29.10.2025 + W.P.(C) 15802/2025 & CM APPL. 64748/2025 LOGIX HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha, Ms Monalisa Maity, Ms Shilpa Chaudhary and Ms Upasna Vashistha, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:- “a) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued U/s 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Petitioner for the A.Y. 2019-20; b) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed U/s 148A(3) for the A.Y. 2019-20 wherein the objections against the reassessment proceedings have been disposed-off and the consequent notice dated 30.06.2025issued U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Petitioner for the A.Y. 2019-20; W.P. (C) 15802/2025 c) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to pass a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding Respondents to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said purported notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and/or in any proceedings initiated thereunder for the A.Y 2019-20;”

2.

In effect, the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and order passed under Section 148A (3) and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2025. This case relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 3. Mr Ruchesh Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to page no.39 of the paperbook to contend that, despite a specific plea taken by the appellant – in the following manner – the Assessing Officer (AO) has not considered the same in the impugned order under Section 148A (3) of the Act:- “On perusal of notice, it has been observed that reassessment proceedings has been initiated u/s 148A on the basis of impugned information about alleged non-genuine transactions with M/s Mekaster Finlease Limited worth Rs 27,72,53,102/- by the assessee during the year. In this regard, we would like to place on records that during the year under review, the assessee company derived business income from real estate business and accordingly filed its ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring net taxable income of Rs.2,19,30,970/-. The case of the assessee was reopened in the month of March, 2023 u/s 148A on the identical issue and assessed at Rs. 25,02,16,448/- by NFAC u/s 147 r.w.s 144B vide order dated 17.03.2025. On perusal of the impugned order, your honor will appreciate that an addition of Rs.22,82,85,479/- has been made on account W.P. (C) 15802/2025 of alleged accommodation transactions between the assessee and M/s.Mekaster Finlease Limited. Inspite of all requisite documents on records followed by verification of the transaction u/s 133(6) of the Act by the AO. Copy ofthe order dated 17.03.2025 alongwith Copy of confirmation of M/s Meaksteralogwith copy of bank statement and ITR as filed during reassessment proceedings are enclosed for your ready reference. Now, again on identical issue, once again notice u/s 148A has been issued. With due respect, it is placed on the records that reassessment proceedings u/s 148 cannot be initiated for the issue already examined by the department either u/s 143(3) or u/s 148 of the Act. Further detail/documents as annexed with the notice, nowhere suggest that there was/were transactions between the assessee and impugned party for Rs.27, 72,53,102/-. Therefore, your honour is requested to provide us complete information in respect of impugned sum of Rs.27,72,53,102/-. The assessee reiterates that there is no escapement of income as alleged in the notice as the transactions between the assessee and M/s. MekasterFinlease Ltd. has already been held as accommodation entries by the department vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025 u/s 147 of the Act. In the meantime, please note that the assessee will file its reply to your notice u/s 148A after receipt of the detail/documents as requested above and accordingly matter may please be adjourned.”

4.

Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned SSC appearing for the Revenue does not contest the contention made by Mr Sinha.

5.

At this stage, Mr Sinha, states that appropriate shall be that the matter be remanded back to the AO to consider afresh the reply/stand taken by the petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs and to enable the AO to pass a fresh and reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. W.P. (C) 15802/2025 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order under Section 148A(3) of the Act and the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2025 and remand the matter back to the AO who by providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also permitting the petitioner to produce all such documents as deemed appropriate in support of its stand taken in its reply, as reproduced above, pass a fresh and reasoned order.

7.

The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of eight weeks from today as an outer limit. Upon passing of the said order, the parties shall proceed in accordance with law.

8.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application stands disposed of having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J OCTOBER 29, 2025 M

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →