ONE TOUCH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1425/2026HC DelhiDLHC01003375202625 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that even assuming a ten-year limitation was available, and considering that the proceedings under Section 148 were initiated in furtherance of a search, the notice issued on 31.08.2024 is time-barred. The Court relied on its own judgment in PCIT Central-1 Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. to calculate the ten-year period backwards from AY 2025-26. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, One Touch Solutions India Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner argued the notice was time-barred. The Revenue contended that since the proceedings stemmed from a search and seizure conducted on 17.11.2021, the limitation period under Section 153A/153C read with Section 148 of the Act was applicable, providing a ten-year window for issuing the notice under Section 148. The High Court considered the arguments and the relevant case law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is time-barred. Assessee's contention: The notice is void as it was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance was placed on the High Court's decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Revenue's contention: Proceedings were initiated pursuant to a search and seizure on 17.11.2021. Therefore, the limitation as per Section 153A/153C read with Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is applicable, providing a ten-year limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1425/2026 CM APPL. 6971/2026 ONE TOUCH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given versus ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs and Ms. Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

25.04.2026 1. In view of the notification no.64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026, the matters listed on 03.03.2026 were directed to be listed today i.e., 25.04.2026. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice is clearly time-barred and thus, void having been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation, as held by this Court in the case of Manju Somani v. Income 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 28/04/2026 at 12:25:01

Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors., NC: 2024:DHC:5411-DB and by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. 4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that since the proceedings against the petitioner had been initiated pursuant to search and seizure conducted on 17.11.2021, the limitation as per Section 153A/ 153C read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be applicable and ten years’ limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is/was available to the respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, even if it is assumed that ten years’ limitation was available, as the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 were initiated against the petitioner in furtherance of the search conducted, if the period of ten years is calculated backwards from AY 2025-26, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of PCIT Central-1 Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. NC: 2024:DHC:2629-DB, the notice issued on 31.08.2024 is time-barred. 6. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 so also any proceedings in furtherance are hereby quashed. 7. The petition stands allowed and the pending application(s) is disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 25, 2026/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 28/04/2026 at 12:25:01

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →