GAGAN PREET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(6) NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13069/2024HC DelhiDLHC01062447202426 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court set aside the order dated August 31, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's assertion in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, stating that no reply was received from the assessee to the show cause notice, was not disputed by the revenue. Since the assessee had demonstrably filed a reply on August 26, 2024, the AO's finding was factually incorrect and perverse. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on August 26, 2024, and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gagan Preet Singh, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the reopening proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 44(6), New Delhi. The challenge was directed against the notice under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) dated August 31, 2024. A key contention was that the Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly stated in paragraph 7 of the impugned order that no reply was received from the assessee to the show cause notice. The petitioner asserted that a reply was indeed filed on August 26, 2024, both physically and online. The respondent revenue did not dispute this assertion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 are liable to be set aside due to the Assessing Officer's incorrect finding that no reply was filed by the assessee to the show cause notice, thereby rendering the finding perverse? Assessee's Contentions: - The AO's conclusion that no reply was received from the assessee is factually incorrect, as a reply was filed on August 26, 2024, both physically and online. - This incorrect finding makes the AO's order under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 perverse and liable to be set aside. - The reopening proceedings are vitiated by violations of Section 151A, CBDT notifications, discrepancies between the show cause notice and the final order, "borrowed satisfaction," arbitrary passing of orders, lack of application of mind, violation of jurisdictional conditions under Sections 148 and 148A, violation of CBDT guidelines, and mechanical sanction under Section 151. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the assessee's assertion that a reply was filed on August 26, 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151A,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13069/2024, CM APPL. 54532/2024 GAGAN PREET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(6) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 26.08.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 (and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024) by respondent is in violation of section 151A and CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022 B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 (and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024) by respondent is based on clear variation between SCN u/s 148A(b) dated 15.08.2024 and final order u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 and impugned SCN is based on wrong and incorrect facts and reopening is merely based on “borrowed satisfaction” C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 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 29/08/2025 at 12:46:38

148; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 by respondent being passed in arbitrary manner without application of mind and is in total violation of jurisdictional conditions stipulated under provisions of 1961 Act (specially sec 148 and sec 148A of the 1961 D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 by respondent being made in violation of CBDT guidelines. E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s 148/148A made on basis of invalid “mechanical” sanction u/s 151 of 1961 Act of CCIT 3 Delhi. F. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate may please give order to grant interim relief to the petitioner by staying the operation of impugned order passed u/s 148A(d)/notice u/s 148 by respondent, which suffers from series of patent and manifest jurisdictional errors as pointed above; 2. One of the ground of challenge is that the Assessing Officer at page 58 as in paragraphs 7 of the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, stated as under: “7. However, no reply has been received from the assessee or its authorized representative till date leading to the belief that the assessee has nothing to submit with regard to credible information received showing escapement of income for the assessment year under consideration as elaborated in the Show Cause Notice” 3. According to Mr. Goel, the conclusion drawn the AO in passing an order under Section 148A(d) by stating that no reply has been filed by the assessee to the show cause notice under Section 148 A(b) is incorrect as the assessee has filed a reply on 26.08.2024 in physical form as well as online. Hence, to that extent, the finding of AO is perverse and as such impugned 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 29/08/2025 at 12:46:38

order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024, so also the notice issued under Section 148 also dated 31.08.2024 need to be set aside. 4. Mr. Agarwal do not dispute the conclusion drawn by AO in paragraph 7 of the order dated 31.8.2024 at page 58. 5. If that be so, we set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) so also the notice passed under Section 148 and remand the matter back to the AO by directing him to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 26.08.2024 and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 26, 2025 ss 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 29/08/2025 at 12:46:38

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →