ALLIED NIPPON PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7193/2025HC DelhiDLHC01033221202528 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging that the petitioner's challenge to the Section 148 notice appeared prima facie merited and was covered by a previous decision of the Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., did not decide the issue on merits. Instead, considering the peculiar facts and the pending appeal before the CIT(A), the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the objection regarding the Section 148 notice before the CIT(A). The Court directed the CIT(A) to consider such an application, if filed within two weeks, expeditiously and within eight weeks of its filing. No decision was made on the validity of the Section 148 notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Allied Nippon Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated 30.05.2023. The petitioner contended that the Section 148 notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Revenue accepted notice. The High Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the assessment order, which was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be struck down on the grounds of being issued beyond the period prescribed for limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period, rendering it invalid and consequently vitiating all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not explicitly record arguments on the merits of the limitation issue in this order. However, they pointed out that an appeal before the CIT(A) was already pending.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7193/2025 & CM APPL. 32384/2025 ALLIED NIPPON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Utkarsa Gupta for Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms. Sakashi Shairwal, JSC, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs & Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

28.05.

2025

1.

Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed pursuant to the said notice. It is the petitioner’s case that the notice was issued beyond the period prescribed for limitation and, therefore, is liable to be struck down. Consequently, all further proceedings impugning the assessment order are also liable to be set aside. 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 01/07/2025 at 20:23:23

3.

Prima facie, the petitioner’s challenge is merited and is covered by the decision of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.2025: DHC:547-DB. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue points out that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] which is pending.

4.

In the peculiar facts of the case, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the objection regarding the notice dated 29.07.2022 before the learned CIT(A). It is directed that if any such application is filed within a period of two weeks from date, the learned CIT(A) shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date, the application is filed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 28, 2025/ ‘A’

Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 20:23:23

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →