DHIRESH GUPTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court, following its own judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi), allowed all the writ petitions. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were indeed beyond the period of limitation, as argued by the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the principle that if the satisfaction note was dated 24.06.2022, then subsequent notices for those assessment years would be time-barred. The ratio decidendi is that the limitation period for issuing notices under Section 153C must be strictly adhered to, and if the initiating event (satisfaction note) falls on a particular date, subsequent actions must be within the prescribed time frame from that date. The impugned notices were quashed, and pending applications were disposed of.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Dhiresh Gupta, filed multiple writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notices for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were issued beyond the period of limitation. This contention was based on the date of a satisfaction note, recorded as 24.06.2022, which the petitioner argued should be considered the date of initiating proceedings. The respondent-department, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not controvert this factual and legal position. The department acknowledged that an SLP was preferred against a relevant High Court judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 are beyond the period of limitation, considering the date of the satisfaction note as 24.06.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that if the date of the satisfaction note (24.06.2022) is taken as the date for initiating proceedings, then the notices for the aforementioned assessment years are time-barred. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's Contention: The respondent-department, through its senior standing counsel, was not in a position to controvert the factual and legal position presented by the petitioner. However, it was stated that an SLP had been preferred against the judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral)
Inviting Court’s attention towards satisfaction note which bears the date 24.06.2022 as referred to by the Assessing Officer of the searched W.P.(C) 3032/2024 & other connected matters
party, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any event, the notices under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) qua the present petitioner must have been issued thereafter. He argued that if such date (date of satisfaction note) i.e. 24.06.2022 is taken to be the date of notice or initiating proceedings, the notices for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 are beyond the period of limitation, as has been held by this Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).
Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent-department is not in a position to controvert this factual and legal position. He, however, submitted that the department has preferred an SLP against the judgment in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd (supra).
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and following the judgment rendered in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), all these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned notices issued under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 for each of the Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 are quashed.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA (JUDGE)
VINOD KUMAR (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ck
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
