H.M. INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX WARD-11(1)DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated 31.03.2024, issued for assessment year 2014-15, was clearly beyond the period of 10 years, if calculated backward from the assessment year 2024-25 (which would be the relevant assessment year if the notice was issued on 31.03.2024). The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed as time-barred. The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.
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 (respondent) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice pertained to assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as applicable for AY 2014-15. The respondent's counsel could not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner. The Court noted that if the notice was issued on 31.03.2024, the relevant assessment year would be 2024-25, making the notice for AY 2014-15 clearly beyond the 10-year period.
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 2014-15 is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing at the relevant time? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing for assessment year 2014-15. They relied on the judgment of this Court 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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
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 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).
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 2014-15).
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 13:06:58
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).
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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 2014-15 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)).
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 13:06:58
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
