RUPINDER DEEP KAUR SOHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 67 (1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/11421/2025HC DelhiDLHC01051949202504 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. The decision was based on the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel stated that they would withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to raise all objections, both on facts and in law, before the Assessing Officer. The Revenue had indicated its intention to issue a corrigendum to an annexure to an approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to correct an error in paragraph 6. While the petitioner argued that PCIT approval under Section 148 Explanation (2)(iv) was lacking, and the Revenue presented evidence of such approval obtained on March 18, 2025, the Court did not delve into the merits of these arguments. The operative direction was to dismiss the petitions as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Rupinder Deep Kaur Sohi, have filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging actions taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 67(1), Delhi. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, sought time to take instructions. Subsequently, the Revenue indicated its intention to issue a corrigendum to an annexure to an approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically to correct an error in paragraph 6. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) as required by sub-clause (iv) of Explanation (2) of Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue contested this, presenting the original record to show that PCIT approval was obtained on March 18, 2025, which the petitioner's counsel stated had not been shared.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was obtained as required under sub-clause (iv) of Explanation (2) of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the impugned action? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that no approval from the PCIT was obtained, which is a mandatory requirement under the law. The petitioner's counsel stated that this approval, even if obtained, had not been shared with the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contested the petitioner's submission by placing the original record before the Court, contending that the approval of the PCIT, as required under sub-clause (iv) of Explanation (2) of Section 148, was indeed obtained on March 18, 2025. The Revenue intended to issue a corrigendum to correct an error in the annexure to the approval under Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 11421/2025
W.P.(C) 11428/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~64 & 65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11421/2025 & CM APPL. 46740/2025 + W.P.(C) 11428/2025 & CM APPL. 46754/2025 RUPINDER DEEP KAUR SOHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakash Sinha, Mr. Ayush Kumar, Mr. Aman Bansal AND Ms. Anjali Bansal, Advocates for petitioner. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 67 (1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Ms.Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 04.08.2025 1. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the Revenue sought time to take instructions. 2. As per his instructions, the respondent intend to issue a corrigendum to the annexure appended to approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] (pages 19-23) more specifically to paragraph 6 thereof, to correct the error which has crept in the said paragraph. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no approval of the PCIT as is required under sub clause (iv) of Explanation (2) of the Section 148 of the Act. The submission is contested by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia by placing before us the original record to contend that 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 12/08/2025 at 13:05:51

the approval of the Principal Commissioner, as is required under sub clause (iv) of Explanation(2) was obtained on 18.03.2025, which according to the counsel for the petitioner has not been shared with the petitioner. 4. He states as of now he shall withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner raise all objections both the facts and in law before the Assessing Officer. 5. In view of the submission made by the counsel for petitioner, the present petitions as well as pending application(s), if any, are dismissed as withdrawn. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 04, 2025 rk 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 12/08/2025 at 13:05:51

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →