BKTS REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) DELHI AND ORS & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14956/2025HC DelhiDLHC01073469202525 April 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024, along with the show cause notice dated 20.08.2024, and all consequential proceedings. The Court's decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue that the case was covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The ratio decidendi is that if reassessment notices are issued beyond the period of limitation as per the prevailing law and judicial pronouncements, they are liable to be quashed. The Court found the notices to be time-barred, rendering them invalid. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, BKTS Realtech Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The challenge was directed against a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15, and a show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner contended that these notices were time-barred and invalid as they were issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment notices dated 31.08.2024 (under Section 148) and 20.08.2024 (under Section 148A(b)) issued for Assessment Year 2014-15 are invalid as they are time-barred, in light of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices were clearly time-barred and thus invalid, having been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. They relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors., NC: 2024:DHC:5411-DB, and the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) fairly conceded that the present case was covered by the decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14956/2025 CM APPL. 61529/2025 BKTS REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yash Gaiha, Adv. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) DELHI AND ORS & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs, Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 25.04.2026

O R D E R

1.

In view of the notification no.64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026, the matters listed on 03.03.2026 were directed to be listed today i.e., 25.04.2026. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, along with a show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. 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 28/04/2026 at 12:25:25

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices are clearly time-barred with regard to the relevant assessment year and thus, invalid having been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation, as held by this Court in the case of Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors., NC: 2024:DHC:5411-DB and by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 4. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the present case is covered by Rajeev Bansal (supra).

5.

In light of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 along with show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

6.

The petition stands allowed.

7.

Pending application is disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 25, 2026/dd 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 28/04/2026 at 12:25:25

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →