PACE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3) AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2130/2023HC DelhiDLHC01005318202312 August 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 disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (SLP (Diary no. 56889/2024) decided on 24.02.2025) had adopted a similar procedure. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit the chart filed in the Court to the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the notices and order but remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pace Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 29.06.2021 under Section 148 (as it existed prior to substitution by the Finance Act, 2021), a letter dated 20.05.2022, an order dated 23.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and a notice dated 23.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These actions pertained to assessment year 2014-15 and were initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3). The petitioner sought to quash these notices and proceedings. The revenue suggested remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the facts and law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 (as it existed prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2021), the letter dated 20.05.2022, the order dated 23.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 23.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2014-15, are liable to be set aside? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 147, 148, and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order are liable to be set aside in view of the settled position of law by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, and by the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sandeep Singh Saluja vs. Income Tax Department and ors., as well as the factual position emerging in the petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that it would be appropriate to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind to the facts and position of law and pass appropriate orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2130/2023 PACE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advs. versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3) AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Nangia and Mr. Gibran Naushad, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

12.08.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(I) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing (a) notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under section 148, as it existed prior to substitution vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, (b) letter/ notice dated 20.05.2022, (c) order dated 23.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 148A(d), (d) notice dated 23.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act in the case of the Petitioner for assessment year 2014-15, and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto; (II) stay the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 vide the impugned notice dated 23.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, and/or any other proceedings initiated thereunder for the assessment year 2014-15, during pendency of the present petition; (III) grant ad-interim ex-parte stay in terms of prayer (IV) above; (IV) call for the records of the case from the Respondents;”

2.

Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in view of the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme 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 21/08/2025 at 12:42:12

Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 and by this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sandeep Singh Saluja vs. Income Tax Department and ors. Neutral Citation NO. 2025:MPHC- IND:19495 and also in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 29.06.2021 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, letter dated 20.05.2022; order dated 23.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) and notice dated 23.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the petitioner for the assessment years 2014-15 are liable to be set aside.

3.

The submission of Mr. Puneet Rai, appearing for the respondents, is that appropriate shall be that the matter be sent back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind on the facts which arises for consideration in this petition and also keeping in view the position of law and to pass appropriate orders.

4.

In fact, our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., SLP (Diary no. 56889/2024) decided on 24.02.2025 wherein a similar procedure has been adopted/ directed.

5.

If that be so, this petition stands disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit the chart as has been filed by the petitioner in the Court today, before the Assessing Officer on the date and time fixed by the Assessing officer to be communicated to the petitioner herein.

6.

The Assessing Officer shall give a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. 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 21/08/2025 at 12:42:12

7.

The petition along with the pending application, if any, is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 12, 2025 ss

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 21/08/2025 at 12:42:12

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →