VIBHOR AGGARWAL (HUF) vs. ITO WARD 34 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1621/2023HC DelhiDLHC01003846202303 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed all the captioned writ petitions. The Court's decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The concession stated that for Assessment Year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the High Court quashed and annulled all the notices dated June 28, 2021, and the consequential proceedings impugned in the writ petitions. The ratio decidendi is that where the Revenue concedes that certain notices are invalid due to statutory time limits, the High Court will uphold that concession and quash such notices.

What were the facts?

These three writ petitions, W.P.(C) 1560/2023, W.P.(C) 1621/2023, and W.P.(C) 1622/2023, were filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners are Vibhor Aggarwal, Vibhor Aggarwal (HUF), and Jolly Aggarwal, respectively. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 34(1), New Delhi, and another respondent. The petitions challenge notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. These notices were issued on June 28, 2021. The procedural history involves the issuance of these notices and the subsequent filing of writ petitions to challenge them.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices for Assessment Year 2015-16, issued on or after April 1, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be dropped in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that the writ petitions should be allowed based on a statement made by the Additional Solicitor General before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. This statement conceded that for Assessment Year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The Revenue (Respondents) did not record any specific arguments against this submission in the provided judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 1560/2023
W.P.(C) 1621/2023
W.P.(C) 1622/2023

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

$~61 to 63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1560/2023

VIBHOR AGGARWAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha & Ms. Upasna Vashistha, Advs.

versus

ITO WARD 34 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan & Mr. Mikramaditya Singh, JSC. (62) + W.P.(C) 1621/2023

VIBHOR AGGARWAL (HUF)

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha & Ms. Upasna Vashistha, Advs.

versus

ITO WARD 34 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan & Mr. Mikramaditya Singh, JSC. (63) + W.P.(C) 1622/2023

JOLLY AGGARWAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha & Ms. Upasna Vashistha, Advs.

versus

ITO WARD 34 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan & Mr. Mikramaditya Singh, JSC. 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 05/02/2026 at 12:38:09

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

03.02.2026 1. The notice for Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 148 which has been challenged in all these writ petitions had been issued on 28.06.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that these writ petition deserve to be allowed in view of the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) which reads thus: “f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;”

3.

In view of the aforesaid, all the captioned writ petition are allowed. All the notices dated 28.06.2021 and consequential proceedings impugned herein are hereby quashed/annulled.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 3, 2026/sr

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 05/02/2026 at 12:38:09

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →