SURENDER KUMAR WADHWA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13880/2024HC DelhiDLHC01067113202423 September 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the first issue concerning the competency of the JAO or FAO, the Court noted that this was covered against the petitioner by its own judgment in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi, which held that both authorities possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. For the second issue, relating to the period of limitation, the Court relied on its prior decision in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In that case, the Court had held that the period provided to the assessee to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) must be excluded, and if the remaining limitation period is less than seven days, it gets extended by seven days. The Court found that the notice in the present case was issued on the last date of the limitation period, making the petitioner's contention of it being beyond limitation erroneous. The Court also noted that a Special Leave Petition against the Raminder Singh judgment was pending before the Supreme Court but no stay had been granted. Consequently, both pleas advanced by the petitioner were deemed unmerited, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The pending application was also disposed of as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surender Kumar Wadhwa, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, followed by an approval dated 09.04.2024 under Section 151 and a notice dated 09.04.2024 under Section 148. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18 and another authority. The petitioner's counsel conceded that two main issues raised in the petition were covered against the petitioner by previous judgments of the same court. The procedural history involved the issuance of notices under Section 148A(b) and subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and Section 148, with the petitioner filing a reply before the stipulated deadline.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the competency to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 were issued beyond the period of limitation? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Kavita Jha, fairly stated that both issues were covered against the petitioner by previous judgments of the Delhi High Court. Specifically, regarding the first issue, she acknowledged that the court had held that both JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment action, citing T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi. For the second issue, she conceded it was covered by the judgment in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with the exclusion of periods under the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) of the Act for calculating the limitation period for issuing notices under Section 148A. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not present separate contentions but was represented by counsel who would have defended the notices and orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 149(1),Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P. (C) 13880/2024
W.P.(C) No.8288/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 13880/2024 & CM APPL. 58088/2024(Stay) SURENDER KUMAR WADHWA .....Petitioner Through: Ms Kavita Jha, Sr Advocate with Ms Aabgina Chishti and Mr Ujwal Ghai, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSCs Ms. Yashika Gupta, Advocate for the Revenue. Mr Ajit Sharma, Advocate for applicant in CM No.60079/2025. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “(a) Allow the present petition and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set-aside notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148A (b) followed by subsequent approval dated 09.04.2024 under Section 151 order dated 09.04.2024 under Section 148A (d) and notice dated 09.04.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner Sh. Surender Kumar Wadhwa; AND”

2.

Ms Kavita Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that the two issues which have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, that is, with regard to the issue of competency of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and also that the order which has been passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is beyond the period of limitation are covered against the petitioner. She fairly states that as far as the first issue is concerned, the same is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8330-DB whereby this Court has held that both the authorities, viz, JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate the action for reassessment.

3.

In so far as the second plea is concerned, she also states that the issue is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax : W.P.(C) No.8288/2023 decided on 07.08.2023 wherein this Court has held as under:- “10. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 31.03.2023, and provided the assessee an opportunity to respond to the same on or before 10.04.2023; thus, the period between 31.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 is required to be excluded by virtue of the fifth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Since, the period of limitation remaining thereafter is less than 07 days, by virtue of the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the period gets extended by 07 days. The impugned notice has been issued on the last date of the limitation period and, therefore, the contention that it is beyond the period of limitation is erroneous.

11.

Thus, the reopening of the assessment for the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20 cannot be set aside. The AO shall, in the reassessment proceedings, duly consider the petitioner’s contention that the expenditure in respect of Angel Enterprises was not booked in the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and, therefore, cannot be the subject matter of reassessment relevant to Assessment Year 2019-2020. Needless to state that the AO shall also consider the petitioner’s contention on merits regarding the transactions entered into with Milap Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.”

4.

It is noted that the review of the order dated 07.08.2023 was sought, which resulted in the order dated 05.09.2023. This Court in the review order dated 05.09.2023 in paragraphs 9 to 11 has stated as under:- “9. This court had accepted the contention that by virtue of the fifth and sixth proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, the period provided to the assessee to respond to the notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act is required to be excluded. Further, if the period of limitation remaining after such exclusion, is less than 7 days, then by virtue of the sixth proviso of section 149(1), the period of limitation is extended by a period of 7 days.

10.

The impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023, and provided the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the same on or before 10.04.2023. Thus, the period between 31.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 is required to be excluded by virtue of the fifth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Since, the period of limitation remaining thereafter is less than 7 days, by virtue of the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the period gets extended by 7 days.

11.

In view of the above, this court held that the impugned notice was issued on the last date of the limitation period – 17.04.2023 – and the petitioner’s contention that the same was issued beyond the period of limitation was erroneous.”

5.

Ms Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that in facts of this case, wherein notice under Section 148A(b) dated 26.03.2024 by which time was granted till 04.04.2024 to file a reply to the same, which is eight days, the same is in compliance of the order under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The reply was filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2024, that is, one day before 04.04.2024 and the order having been passed on 09.04.2024, that is, much before the seven days’ had expired on 10.04.2024 or 11.04.2024 (as the case may be) the same was within limitation. She states that plea of the petitioner shall be unmerited.

6.

We have been informed that a Special Leave Petition (Civil) with Diary No.48769/2023, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court against the order dated 07.08.2023 in Raminder Singh (supra), but no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court.

7.

If that be so, we are of the view that both the pleas advanced by Ms Jha, are unmerited. We dismiss this petition. The pending application is also disposed of having become infructuous. CM APPL. 60079/2025(impleadment)

8.

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition itself, he shall withdraw this application to enable the applicant seek such remedy, as available in law.

9.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 M

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →