H.M. INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX WARD-11(1)DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9699/2024HC DelhiDLHC01041196202419 May 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice impugned, issued on 31.03.2024, for assessment year 2013-14, is clearly beyond the period of 10 years if calculated backward from assessment year 2024-25. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgments, including Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The notice was therefore quashed as time-barred. The writ petition was allowed, and the pending application stood disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 for a past assessment year, if issued beyond the statutory time limits as applicable at the time of issuance, is invalid and liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, H.M. Infracon Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued by the Income Tax Ward-11(1) Delhi under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as it prevailed for AY 2013-14. The respondents-Department, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, could not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner. The Court noted that the notice was issued on 31.03.2024, and if the relevant assessment year was 2024-25, then the notice for AY 2013-14 would be beyond 10 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14 is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing for AY 2013-14? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148, Section 149, and Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The impugned notice is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2013-14). The issue is squarely covered by the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~116 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9699/2024 & CM APPL. 39793/2024 H.M. INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Shilpa Choudhary & Ms.Monalisa Maity, Advs. versus INCOME TAX WARD-11(1)DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs and Mr.Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

19.05.

2026

1.

By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued by respondents-Department for assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2013-14).

3.

He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is 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 21/05/2026 at 13:06:56

squarely covered by judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).

4.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Needless to mention that since the impugned notice was issued on 31.03.2024, the relevant assessment year is 2024-25. Therefore, the notice impugned issued qua assessment year 2013-14 is clearly beyond the period of 10 years, if calculated backward from assessment year 2024-25. 7. The notice impugned is, thus, quashed being time-barred. (In re: Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Dinesh Jindal (supra)).

8.

The writ petition is allowed. Pending application stands disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 19, 2026 kk

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 21/05/2026 at 13:06:56

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →