SEEMA GOEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 28.02.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17, was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the period of six years from the end of AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. As the impugned notice was issued after this date, it contravened the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court noted that the respondent's counsel concurred with this view. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and allowed the petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Seema Goel, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The petition also challenged an order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated 07.12.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous High Court decisions. The period of six years from the end of AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice was issued after this date, making it barred by limitation. The respondent's counsel concurred with this view.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17 is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime and the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. They further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, specifically passages highlighting that a notice under the new regime cannot be issued if the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime has expired, and that the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year must not have expired at the time of issuance of the notice. For AY 2016-17, this period expired on 31.03.2023, making the impugned notice issued thereafter time-barred. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the respondent concurred with the petitioner's submission regarding the limitation period.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 149(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.02.2025 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment Year [AY] 2016-17. 2. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 07.12.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following 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 22:32:46
passages from the said judgment:
“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. ***
***
***
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 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.”
In the present case, 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:32:46
AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice was issued thereafter, and is, therefore, barred by limitation.
The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.
In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 28.02.2025, is set aside.
The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 13, 2025/KG
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 22:32:46
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
