INDERPAL SINGH SAYAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13415/2025HC DelhiDLHC01064082202502 September 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that since the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by filing an appeal and had also filed an application for stay before the Assessing Officer, urging the same grounds as presented in the writ petition, it was appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedies already invoked. The Court distinguished the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, relied upon by the petitioner, noting that in the present case, the petitioner had not only filed an appeal but also a stay application before the Assessing Officer. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Red Chilli International Sales v. Income-tax Officer, which dealt with the challenge to a High Court order rejecting a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Consequently, the High Court closed the writ petition, finding it appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the appellate and stay applications already filed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inderpal Singh Sayan, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order passed under Section 148A(d), and a notice issued under Section 148. Subsequently, an assessment order dated 18.03.2025 was passed for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction because, after three years from the end of AY 2018-19, the approval for initiating such proceedings should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, not just the Principal Commissioner. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and an application for stay before the Assessing Officer, raising the same grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent are without jurisdiction due to the alleged lack of proper approval from the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the lapse of three years from the end of AY 2018-19. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the approval for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148A(d) and issuing notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. However, as three years had elapsed from the end of AY 2018-19, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was required, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on grounds similar to those urged in the present petition for their appeal before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in response to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13415/2025 INDERPAL SINGH SAYAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr Advocate with Mr Shivang Bansal, Advocate. versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs, Mr. Surya Jindal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R % 02.09.2025 CM APPL. 55008/2025(Exemption)

1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13415/2025 & CM APPL. 55007/2025 (Stay)

3.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari i) quashing the re-assessment proceeding initiated by R-2 by way of notice-dated 17.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act ii) order-dated 26.07.2023 passed by R-2 u/s 148A(d) of the Act and iii) notice-dated 26.07.2023 issued by R- 2 u/s 148 of the Act, b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari 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 11/09/2025 at 12:38:59

quashing the proceeding conducted by R-1 u/s 148 of the Act , c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 18.03.2025 passed in pursuance to such illegal proceeding by R-1 u/s 147 r/w section 1448 of the Act for AY 2018-19, d) writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering the demand raised in pursuance to such proceeding and”

4.

In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.07.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); notice dated 17.03.2022 under Section 148 A(b) of the Act and another notice dated 26.07.2023 under Section 148 of the Act.

5.

We have been informed that pursuant to the notice dated 26.07.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, an assessment order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed.

6.

We are also informed by Ms Prem Lata Bansal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] along with an application for stay before the Assessing Officer. According to her, the only reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court is that before passing order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148, the respondent no.2 has taken approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax but as 3 years have elapsed from the end of the AY 2018-19, the same required approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as such the proceedings are without jurisdiction. She concedes to the fact that the additional grounds filed by the petitioner in the appeal before 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 11/09/2025 at 12:38:59

the CIT(A), are the ones which have been urged by her in this petition..

7.

If that be so, we are of the view that once the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) with an application for stay before the Assessing Officer, urging the same grounds, as sought to be urged before this Court, appropriate shall be for the petitioner to pursue the remedy invoked before the CIT(A). Insofar as, the judgments relied upon by Ms Bansal are concerned, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, W.P. (L.) No. 33793/2024, the Bombay High Court noting the fact that an appeal has been filed against the Assessment Order, held the petitioner can still file the writ petition and passed order of stay till proceedings before the Appellate Authority are decided. The said case is distinguishable, inasmuch as, in the present case, apart from filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the petitioner herein has also filed an application for stay before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner has urged, similar grounds as sought to be urged before us. Appropriate is for the petitioner to press the stay application before Assessing Officer.

8.

Insofar as, the judgment in the case of Red Chilli International Sales v. Income-tax Officer, decided by the Supreme Court being [2023] 146 taxmann.com 224(SC) is concerned, therein the challenge was made to an order passed by the High Court rejecting the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

9.

Suffice to state, as the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal before the CIT(A) and also filed an application for stay before the Assessing Officer. Even the appeal before the CIT(A) includes the grounds as have been urged in this petition.

10.

In view of above, the petition is closed. The pending application 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 11/09/2025 at 12:38:59

also disposed of having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 M 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 11/09/2025 at 12:38:59

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →