LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR / TRANSFEREE COMPANY OF IP SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10174/2025HC DelhiDLHC01045944202505 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 High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(3) dated June 30, 2025, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated June 30, 2025, were set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider the reply dated April 15, 2025, which was filed in response to the show cause notice issued on March 30, 2025, under Section 148A(1). Following this consideration, the Assessing Officer was to pass an order to proceed in accordance with the law. This exercise was to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition and the accompanying application were disposed of in terms of this direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT. LTD. (successor to IP SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), filed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148A(1) dated March 30, 2025, an order under Section 148A(3) dated June 30, 2025, and a notice under Section 148 dated June 30, 2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that these actions were taken without considering their reply filed on April 15, 2025. Specifically, the order under Section 148A(3) noted that no reply had been filed, which the petitioner argued was factually incorrect and a violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, requesting a fresh decision after considering their reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148A(1) dated March 30, 2025, the order under Section 148A(3) dated June 30, 2025, and the notice under Section 148 dated June 30, 2025, for AY 2021-22, were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply filed on April 15, 2025. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were bad in law as they were passed without considering their reply dated April 15, 2025. They highlighted that the order under Section 148A(3) incorrectly stated that no reply was filed. They relied on the fact that a similar issue for a preceding year was decided by the High Court, quashing the notices and orders issued in an identical manner. They sought a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider their reply and pass a fresh decision. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) agreed that the Assessing Officer could be directed to consider the reply filed by the assessee on April 15, 2025, without setting aside the initial show cause notice under Section 148A(1), and then proceed in accordance with law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10174/2025, CM APPL. 42265/2025 LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR / TRANSFEREE COMPANY OF IP SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

05.08.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers : “(i) issue of a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby quashing the impugned notice u/s 148 of Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 30/06/25 for AY 2021-22 together with the impugned order u/s 148A(3) dated 30/06/25 for AY 2021-22 along with notice u/s 148A(1) dated 30/03/25 for AY 2021-22 issued in the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of amalgamating/dead entity being manifestly bad in law; that the Petitioner’s case for the current AY 2021-22 is very squarely covered by the detailed decision of this Court dated 26/09/24 in a batch of cases including Petitioner’s own cases for the preceding year wherein also the impugned notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) were quashed being issued in an absolutely identical manner as in the current AY 2021-22 and this Court vide its interim order for the preceding year in petitioner’s own case was pleased to order for a complete stay on the Notice u/s 148 & order u/s 148A(d) issued in the PAN of the amalgamating / dead 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 20/08/2025 at 12:32:00

entity in an absolutely identical manner as in the current AY 2021-22. (ii) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue interim orders similar to the interim orders as passed in the preceding year by directing a complete stay on re-opening notice including order which have issued in an absolutely identical manner to the impugned re-opening notice u/s 148 along with the impugned re-opening order u/s 148A( 3 ) as in the current AY 2021-22.”

2.

In effect, the case of the petitioner as contended by Mr. Piyush Kaushik, is that pursuant to the notice issued under section 148A(1) dated 30.03.2025 which resulted in passing of an order under section 148A(3) and also issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.06.2025, the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as, they have been issued/passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner assessee on 15.04.2025. 3. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to pages 76 onwards. He has also drawn our attention to annexure P-2 which is an order passed under section 148A(3) dated 30.06.2025 specifically paragraph 4.4 at page 37 wherein, the Assessing Officer stated that “however, no reply has been filed by the assessee till date” to contend, the said conclusion supports his submission.

4.

According to Mr. Kaushik, the order passed under section 148A(3) dated 30.06.2025 followed by notice under section 148 dated 30.06.2025 need to be set aside by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the reply filed on 15.04.2025 for a fresh decision thereof and then proceed in accordance with law.

5.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC states, this Court without setting aside the initial show cause notice under Section 148A(1), this Court may direct the 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 20/08/2025 at 12:32:00

Assessing Officer to consider the reply filed by assessee on 15.04.2025 and pass order to proceed in accordance with law.

6.

If that be so, the order passed under section 148A(3) on 30.06.2025 and also notice issued under section 148 dated 30.06.2025 are set aside by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the reply dated 15.04.2025 to the show cause notice issued on 30.03.2025 under 148A(1) and pass order to proceed in accordance with law.

7.

The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within four weeks from today.

8.

The petition along with the application, is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 05, 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 20/08/2025 at 12:32:00

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →