VIPIN AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/11200/2024HC DelhiDLHC01050378202427 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that it is bound by its own previous judgment in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, which established that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. The Court noted that subsequent writ petitions on identical issues, Yukti Export v. ITO and All India Kataria Education Society v. DCIT, were also dismissed by this Court. While acknowledging the petitioner's submission that the Supreme Court had issued notice and stayed proceedings in appeals against similar Delhi High Court orders, the Court reiterated that it must follow its own binding precedents. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the court after a decision is rendered by the Supreme Court, stating that the petitioner would be entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law based on the Supreme Court's judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vipin Automobiles Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated March 27, 2024. The sole ground for the challenge was that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked the competence to initiate reassessment proceedings. The petitioner relied on a Bombay High Court judgment. However, the petitioner conceded that the Delhi High Court, in the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, had previously held that both the JAO and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings. This issue is noted as pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has the competence to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Faceless Assessing Officer also has jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the JAO lacks the competence to initiate reassessment proceedings, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner acknowledged that the Delhi High Court in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer had held otherwise, but noted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court had issued notice and stayed assessment proceedings in similar cases. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side beyond their appearance through counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11200/2024 CM APPL. 46313/2024 VIPIN AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Mr. Dushyant Nayak, Mr. Jitender Singh, Mr. Rajiv Kumar and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia SSC with Mr. Anant Mann JSC and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

27.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “1) It is therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- Issue a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Order u/s 148A(d) dated 27.03.2024, and Impugned notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other Consequential proceedings; 2) Issue a writ of PROHIBITION or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit the Assessing Officer and any other income Tax Authority regarding the Impugned Order u/s 148A(d) dated 27.03.2024, and Impugned notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do any consequential reassessment proceedings and any other Consequential proceedings; and 3) For such further and other reliefs, including costs of 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 02/12/2025 at 12:12:25

this Petition, as this Hon’blc Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case;” 2. The only ground on which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner is that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer does not have the competence to initiate proceedings for reassessment. 3. The submission of Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner is primarily relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom (1249). He do as concede to the fact that this court in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi Neutral Citation 2024;DHC;8330-DB has held that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have the concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment. He do concede that this issue is pending for consideration before the Supreme Court. 4. Suffice to state that as this Court has passed the judgment in the case of TKS Builders (supra) and the same is binding on this Court so the challenge by the petitioner on this ground is not sustainable. In fact, this Court in subsequent writ petitions Yukti Export v. ITO, 2025:DHC:8710- DB and All India Kataria Education Society v. DCIT, W.P.(C) 14225/2025 have on an identical issue dismissed the writ petitions. 5. Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that against the orders passed by this court dismissing the identical writ petitions, the Supreme Court has issued notice and stayed the assessment proceedings. 6. We have on a similar plea has recently in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) 16937/2025 and connected petitions dismissed the petitions 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 02/12/2025 at 12:12:25

vide order dated 21.11.2025. 7. If that be so, for parity of reasons, we do not see any merit in the contention raised by Mr. Kanwar, as we are bound by the judgment passed by this court in TKS Builder (supra). Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, Mr. Kanwar states that liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach this Court after the decision is rendered by the Supreme Court. 9. Suffice to state that a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court being binding, surely it would be for the petitioner to avail remedy, if any available in accordance with law. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025 dd 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 02/12/2025 at 12:12:25

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →