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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1622/2023HC DelhiDLHC01003849202303 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 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 Revenue had conceded that for Assessment Year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped because they would not fall within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Consequently, the Court quashed and annulled all the notices dated June 28, 2021, and the consequential proceedings that were impugned in these writ petitions. The principle derived is that a concession made by the Revenue before the apex court, regarding the applicability of statutory time limits, is binding and will be given effect to by High Courts.

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 by Vibhor Aggarwal, Vibhor Aggarwal (HUF), and Jolly Aggarwal, respectively. The petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. These notices were dated June 28, 2021. The respondents in all petitions are the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 34(1), New Delhi, and another respondent. The petitions were heard by the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, dated June 28, 2021, are liable to be quashed in light of the statement made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the writ petitions should be allowed based on a statement made by the learned 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 within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue on this point, other than their counsel appearing. However, the conceded position before the Supreme Court, as stated by the petitioner, implies the Revenue's agreement.

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 12:38:11

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 12:38:11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →