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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2128/2023HC DelhiDLHC01005316202312 August 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the Revenue did not contest the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693), which was followed by this Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. W.P.(C) 1261/2023. In the Rajeev Bansal case, the Revenue had conceded that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148, and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were set aside. The Court also referred to its own decision in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:1892-DB, which covered the controversy in favour of the petitioner. The petition was disposed of as allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pace Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging several notices and orders related to reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. These included a notice dated 29.06.2021 under Section 148 (pre-amendment), a letter/notice dated 20.05.2022, an order dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148A(d), a notice dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148, and an order dated 11.01.2023 disposing of objections. The core of the challenge was that these actions were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on 01.04.2021. The Revenue did not contest the applicability of certain Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 (as it existed prior to substitution by the Finance Act, 2021) and subsequent proceedings for AY 2015-16 are bad in law as they are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice and order, passed after 01.04.2021, are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the amended Section 149. They relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and a Delhi High Court judgment in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. W.P.(C) 1261/2023, which cited a concession made by the Revenue in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. This concession stated that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 would have to be dropped. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not contest the applicability of the judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, as followed by the Delhi High Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2128/2023 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 28.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 148A(d), (d) notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, (e) impugned order dated 11.01.2023 disposing off the objections, in the case of the Petitioner for assessment year 2015-16, and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto; (II) stay the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 vide the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, and/or any other proceedings initiated thereunder for the assessment year 2015-16, 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;”

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 12:42:11

2.

The submission of Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 under section 148A(d) and also notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are bad in law as they are beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act which came into effect on 01.04.2021. 3. According to him, concedingly, the impugned notice and impugned order have been passed post 01.04.2021 and as such, the same need to be set aside.

4.

Mr. Ajay Vohra also submits that the issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided by various High Courts including that of Bombay High Court and of Rajasthan and Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue Department against the order of Bombay High Court, has been dismissed. He has also drawn our attention to Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr.W.P.(C) 1261/2023, a judgment passed by this Court wherein paragraphs 11 onwards, this Court has stated as under :

“11. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) from the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra), which sets out the concession as made on behalf of the Revenue: “e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: 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 12:42:11

. f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;”

12.

In view of the above concession, the impugned notice and the proceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We may also note the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.: Civil Appeal No.5177/2025, decided on 02.04.2025. The said appeal arose from orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and Cuttack declining to entertain batch of petitions filed by the Assessees. The attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- “19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.”

5.

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment 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 12:42:11

of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.

13.

The notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act stands quashed and set aside. Concededly, the controversy is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this court in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:1892-DB.

14.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside.

15.

The next date of hearing, that is, 16.09.2025, stands cancelled.”

5.

Whereas, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for respondents do not contest the applicability of the judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 as followed by this Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. W.P.(C) 1261/2023. 6. If that be so, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under section 148A (d) and also notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, so also the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside.

7.

The present petition is disposed of, as allowed.

8.

All applications have become infructuous.

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 12:42:11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →