ARUN GARG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6614/2024HC DelhiDLHC01026482202408 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 held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were clearly barred by limitation. The Court noted that the Assessment Year in question was 2016-17. According to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year expired on March 31, 2023. Since the notice was issued on April 16, 2024, it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The Court relied on its own judgment in Manju Somani and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the applicability of time limits for reopening assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and order. The petition was disposed of as allowed, and pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Garg, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 16, 2024, and an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, also dated April 16, 2024. These proceedings were initiated for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the reopening was time-barred and based on an erroneous understanding of a previous court order. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) for Assessment Year 2016-17, dated April 16, 2024, are barred by limitation under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the reopening proceedings were time-barred. They relied on the judgment of this court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-17(1) & Ors. and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. Specifically, they highlighted paragraphs 46 and 49 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment, which interpreted the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime concerning the time limits for issuing notices, particularly for assessment years prior to April 1, 2021. The petitioner asserted that the six-year period from the end of Assessment Year 2016-17 had expired before the notice was issued. Revenue's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 149(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6614/2024 CM APPL. 27527/2024 CM APPL.48687/2025 ARUN GARG .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

08.08.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 16.04.2024; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 16.04.2024 by respondent being time barred u/s 149(1) and based on totally erroneous understating of order of this hon’ble court in Twylight case (05.01.2024) and based on totally incorrect invocation of clause relating to “Information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court.” B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 16.04.2024; and order passed 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.

u/s 148A(d) dated 16.04.2024 by respondent being passed in arbitrary manner without application of mind; C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s 148/148A in violation of sec. 151A/cbdt notifications. D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 16.04.2024; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 16.04.2024 by respondent being made in violation of CBDT guidelines. E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s 148/148A made on basis of invalid sanction u/s 151 of 1961 Act. F. FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI/MANDAMUS OR AN ORDER QUASHING SCN’s DATED 31.03.2024 BEING ILLEGALY /IRRATIONALLY ISSUED WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND G. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate may please give order to grant interim relief to the petitioner by staying the operation of impugned order passed u/s 148A(d)/notice u/s 148 by respondent, which suffers from series of patent and manifest jurisdictional errors as pointed above;”

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.

2.

As is noted from above, the challenge is to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 16.4.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The challenge is also to an order passed on 148A(d) dated 16.4.2024. 3. The submission of Ld. Counsel for petitioner is that the case in hand is covered by the judgement of this court in the case of Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-17(1) & Ors.: Neutral Citation 2024: DHC:5411-DB. The counsel has also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC Online 2693 wherein according to him, the court has in paragraphs 46 and 49 stated as under :

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

49.

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant 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.

assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012- 2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.”

4.

The Assessment Year being 2016-17, the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year i.e 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The notice having been issued on 16.04.2024 is clearly barred by limitation.

5.

Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 dated 16.04.2024 and order passed under Order 148A(d) also dated 16.04.2024 are set aside.

6.

The petition is disposed of as allowed. The pending applications are also dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 08, 2025 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.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →