MEENU GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3574/2023HC DelhiDLHC01009856202303 March 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of its judgment in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605]. The Court directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) to evaluate the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bearing in mind the judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta, which settled issues pertaining to sanction under Section 151 and the authority of the AO to commence reassessment. Crucially, the AO was also directed to examine the issue of the 'surviving period' for each noticee under Section 148, guided by the judgments in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 481]. The AO is to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the impact of these judgments on the impugned reassessment notices, determining whether they would survive or be liable to be recalled. The petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any adverse orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meenu Goyal, filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), for Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary issue in dispute is the 'surviving period' of the reassessment proceedings. The petitioner provided a chart detailing the timeline of notices issued under Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on May 17, 2022, with a reply due by June 1, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was passed on July 26, 2022. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were time-barred, citing a decision of the Delhi High Court in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2014-15 are barred by limitation, specifically concerning the 'surviving period' under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. They relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (2025:DHC:656-DB) to support their claim that the proceedings should not survive. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the 'surviving period' or limitation. However, the revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3574/2023 MEENU GOYAL .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Parth Samwal, JSCs with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

03.03.

2025

1.

The instant writ petition had been preferred assailing the reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [„AY‟] 2014-15. We take note of the principal challenge which now remains and pertains to the issue of surviving period.

2.

The petitioner, in order to buttress its claim of the proceedings being time barred, has placed for our consideration the following chart: WP (C) NO 3574/2023 item 44 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 20:47:01

ASST YEAR 2014-2015 OLD LAW/ INITIAL NOTICE U/S 148 13.04.2021 (ANNEXURE P-2 PAGE 53) 148A(B) NOTICE 17.05.2022 (TIME TILL 01.06.2022) ANNEXURE P-3 PAGE 54 TO 207) REPLY 148A(C) NO 148 NEW LAW NOTICE AND 148A(D) ORDER 26.07.2022 (ANNEXURE P-4 & P-5 PAGE 208 TO 210/211-212)) STATUS Covered by this hon‟ble court decision in case of Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors 2025:DHC:656-DB (para 27 to para 29 )

3.

The said question would have to be necessarily examined by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] as well as of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 481].

4.

Dealing with identical issues, we had disposed of a batch of writ petitions by our judgment rendered in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605] in the following terms:

“27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search. 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 20:47:01

28.

A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram.

29.

The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.”

5.

Consequently, and in light of the above, we dispose of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MARCH 03, 2025/DR 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 20:47:01

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →