SHAILENDRA NATH RAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 60 (1) NEW DELHI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15305/2024HC DelhiDLHC01075366202429 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the review petition, recalling its judgment dated May 29, 2026. The Court found that the original judgment proceeded on an erroneous factual basis, specifically that the assessee's reply was filed on April 21, 2024. The record, however, established that a personal hearing was granted on April 23, 2024, and a detailed reply was filed on April 25, 2024. Consequently, the 7-day period under the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) would extend until May 2, 2024. Therefore, the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148, issued on April 30, 2024, were well within the limitation period. The Court held that this factual error went to the root of the matter, constituting an apparent error on the face of the record. The writ petition was restored to its original position.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to recall a judgment dated May 29, 2026, passed by the Delhi High Court. In the original writ petition, the assessee, Shailendra Nath Rai, had challenged an order under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The High Court had allowed the writ petition, quashing the order and notice, holding the proceedings to be barred by limitation. The Revenue contended that the original judgment was based on an erroneous factual premise regarding the date of the assessee's final reply and the date of personal hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148, dated April 30, 2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18, were barred by limitation, concerning the provisos to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention (as understood from the original judgment's basis): The initial reply was filed on April 21, 2024. After excluding the time up to this date, the Assessing Officer had only 7 days under the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) to pass the order and issue the notice, which expired on April 28, 2024. Therefore, the actions on April 30, 2024, were beyond the limitation period. Revenue's Contention: The judgment dated May 29, 2026, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because it overlooked that the assessee had requested a personal hearing. The Assessing Officer granted a personal hearing on April 23, 2024, and the assessee filed a final substantive reply on April 25, 2024. Applying the 7-day period from April 25, 2024, the Assessing Officer was entitled to act up to May 2, 2024. Thus, the actions on April 30, 2024, were within the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 149(1),Section 114,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 (SB) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010753662024 + W.P.(C) 15305/2024

SHAILENDRA NATH RAI

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Madhur Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 60 (1) NEW DELHI AND ANR

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms.Naincy Jain & Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs, Mr. Udit Dad&Mr.Ujjwal Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

15.09.2026 CM APPL. 49705/2026 (delay of 10 days in filing) 1. Instant application has been filed by the respondent/review petitioner seeking condonation of 10 days’ delay in filing the review petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 10 days in filing the review petition stands condoned. CM APPL. 49706/2026 (delay of 13 days in re-filing) 3. Instant application has been filed by the respondent/review petitioner seeking condonation of 13 days’ delay in re-filing the review petition. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 13 days in re-filing the review petition stands condoned. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:49:10

REVIEW PET. 344/2026&CM APPL. 49704/2026 (stay) 5. The present review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the Respondents-Department seeking review of the judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by this Court. 6. Vide judgment dated 29.05.2026, this Court had allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-assessee and had quashed the order dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) as well as the consequential notice of even date issued under Section 148 relating to Assessment Year 2017–18, holding the proceedings to be barred by limitation. 7. A perusal of paragraphs 19 to 24 of the judgment dated 29.05.2026 reveals the foundation upon which the petition was decided, which was that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 29.03.2024 whereafter the assessee sought adjournments on 08.04.2024 and 12.04.2024, and ultimately reply was filed on 21.04.2024. 8. Proceeding under the impression that the reply dated 21.04.2024 was the only or final reply submitted by the assessee, this Court applied the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) of the Act of 1961 and held that after excluding the time taken up to 21.04.2024, the Assessing Officer had an extended period of only 7 days under the sixth proviso to pass the order under Section 148A(d) and issue the notice under Section 148, which expired on 28.04.2024. Consequently, this Court held that the order and notice passed/issued on 30.04.2024 were barred by limitation. 9. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the review petitioners-Department, submits that the judgment dated 29.05.2026 suffers 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 19/09/2026 at 11:49:10

from an error apparent on the face of the record, as material chronological events and documents forming part of the writ petition record were inadvertently overlooked during arguments: In the written submissions-reply dated 21.04.2024, inasmuch as the petitioner had prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. 10. He submitted that acceding to this request and in compliance with the principles of natural justice; the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 22.04.2024 providing further time to file a response by 23.04.2024 and fixed a personal hearing for 23.04.2024 at 03:00 pm. The assessee availed the personal hearing on 23.04.2024. And following the personal hearing, the petitioner filed an additional and final substantive reply on 25.04.2024. 11. Mr. Chandra contended that the period of exclusion extended at least until 23.04.2024, or until the filing of the final reply on 25.04.2024. Applying the 7-day period available under the sixth proviso from 25.04.2024, the Assessing Officer was legally entitled to pass the order under Section 148A(d) and issue notice under Section 148 up to 02.05.2024. The action taken on 30.04.2024, was therefore well within limitation. 12. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-non-applicant, fairly concedes that the personal hearing was conducted on 23.04.2024 and the assessee’s reply was filed on 25.04.2024. 13. Heard the rival submissions and examined the record. 14. In the present case, the determination was anchored on the premise or under a belief that the assessee's reply was filed on 21.04.2024, perhaps going by the written submission of the assessee. Whereas, the record establishes that an opportunity of personal hearing was granted by the Assessing Officer on 23.04.2024 and a detailed reply came to be filed on 25.04.2024 (Annexure-9). 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 19/09/2026 at 11:49:10

15.

Since the reply was filed on 25.04.2024, the 7-day period under the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) would end on 02.05.2024. Hence, the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 issued on 30.04.2024 were well issued within limitation. 16. It is therefore evident that the judgment dated 29.05.2026 proceeded on an erroneous factual basis, which goes to the root of the matter and the order suffers from apparent error on the face of the record. 17. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 29.05.2026 is hereby recalled. 18. The writ petition W.P.(C) 15305/2024 stands restored to its original position and ordered to be listed on 13.01.2027.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/kk 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 19/09/2026 at 11:49:10

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →