REAL FINCAP LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21 (1) NEW DELHI
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions in light of its previous decision in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle. The Court directed the Assessing Officers (AOs) to evaluate the individual show cause notices (SCNs) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This evaluation must consider the judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta, which settled issues regarding the accordal of sanction under Section 151 and the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence reassessment. The AOs are also to examine the surviving period of each notice under Section 148, guided by the judgments in Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. The AOs are to pass reasoned and speaking orders determining whether the reassessment notices survive or should be recalled. The petitioners retain the right to challenge any adverse orders.
What were the facts?
These four writ petitions (W.P.(C) 2841/2023, W.P.(C) 3322/2023, W.P.(C) 3580/2023, and W.P.(C) 3679/2023) were filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners challenged reassessment actions initiated by the revenue authorities for Assessment Year 2015-16. The reassessment notices were issued after April 1, 2021. The revenue's actions were taken in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal. The High Court had previously dealt with similar matters in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reassessment notices issued post-01 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are valid, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal and subsequent High Court judgments (T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, Naveen Kumar Gupta, Rajeev Bansal, and Ram Balram)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners challenged the reassessment actions, arguing that the notices were issued without proper authority or in contravention of established legal principles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashish Agarwal and subsequent clarifications. Revenue's Contention: The revenue initiated reassessment proceedings based on the amended provisions and the Supreme Court's directive in Ashish Agarwal, asserting the validity of their actions. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal and the subsequent judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
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
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 23:31:00
Through: Mr. Atit Jain, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21-1 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kr. & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
O R D E R %
2025
These writ petitions had questioned the reassessment actions pertaining to Assessment Year [“AY”] 2015-16 which came to be initiated in terms of the notices impugned.
The notices were issued post 01 April 2021 and whereafter the respondents adopted a course correction in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal1. 3. We have, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors.2, wherein we had an occasion to examine the fall out of the judgment in Ashish Agarwal as explained in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 3, ultimately, remitted all matters for the consideration of the Assessing Officer in the following terms: “27.We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs‟
1 (2023) 1 SCC 617 2 2025:DHC:656-DB 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 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 23:31:00
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.
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.
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.”
We, consequently, dispose of these writ petitions in light of paras 27 to 29 in Kanwaljeet Kaur.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 4, 2025/v
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 23:31:00
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 Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanatan Bal vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
