ANMOL TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13089/2025HC DelhiDLHC01061816202509 September 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that there was an infirmity in the order dated June 28, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. A perusal of the order revealed that while it referred to the petitioner's replies dated April 15, 2025, and June 24, 2025, it did not mention or consider the reply dated June 28, 2025. This omission indicated that the reply dated June 28, 2025, was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated June 28, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated June 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after considering all the replies filed by the petitioner, including those dated April 15, 2025, June 24, 2025, and June 28, 2025. This fresh order was to be passed within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The parties were directed to proceed in accordance with law once the fresh order was passed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anmol Tradex Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging show-cause notices dated March 31, 2025, and June 25, 2025, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also challenged the consequent order dated June 28, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated June 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, Delhi. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that their reply dated June 28, 2025, filed pursuant to the notice dated June 25, 2025, was not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the order under Section 148A(3) on the same day.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Respondent under Section 148A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated by non-consideration of the petitioner's reply dated 28.06.2025, thereby rendering it a non-speaking and unreasoned order. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(3)). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the AO failed to consider their reply dated June 28, 2025, which was filed in response to the notice dated June 25, 2025. This failure, according to the petitioner, led to the AO passing the order under Section 148A(3) on the same day, June 28, 2025, without due consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 13089/2025 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 13089/2025 & CM APPL. 53626/2025 ANMOL TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Mr. Shouryendu Ray, Mr. Yashendra Singhwal, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC Mr. Surya Jindal Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 53627/2025(exemption)

1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13089/2025 & CM APPL. 53626/2025(stay)

3.

The petition has been filed with the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the two show-cause notices dated 31.03.2025 and 25.06.2025 W.P.(C) 13089/2025 issued by the Respondent under Section 148A(1) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961, the consequent Order dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the Act, and the notice dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act.”

4.

One of the submissions by Dr Manas, learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the respondents have not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner on 28.06.2025 pursuant to the notice dated 25.06.2025. 5. According to him, the respondents have passed the order on 28.06.2025 itself.

6.

In fact, we note that on a perusal of the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act dated 28.06.2025 more specifically paragraph 5 at pages 67 & 68, though it refers to the replies of the petitioner dated 15.04.2025 and 24.06.2025 but not of 28.06.2025, which means the reply dated 28.06.2025 was not considered.

7.

Noting the infirmity in the order dated 28.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act, we set aside the said order and also the notice dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO), who shall pass a fresh order after considering all the replies filed by the petitioner dated 15.04.2025, 24.06.2025 and 28.06.2025. This fresh order shall be a reasoned and speaking order, and shall be passed within six weeks from today.

8.

Once the AO has passed the fresh order, under Section 148A(3) of the Act, the parties to proceed in accordance with law.

9.

The petition and accompanying application seeking interim stay stand W.P.(C) 13089/2025 disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2025 RT

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →