AMANDEEP SINGH PROPRIETOR , GURU KRIPA ENTERPRISES vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17076/2025HC DelhiDLHC01088017202518 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while the notice dated 13.06.2025, when viewed in isolation, might give the impression of being a fresh jurisdictional notice, the material on record, including the affidavit filed by the respondent (Assessing Officer), clearly indicates that it is a continuation of the proceedings initiated by the earlier notice dated 29.03.2025. The Court found no error or infirmity in the proceedings being undertaken by the respondent, as they should be construed to have been initiated on 29.03.2025. Consequently, the proceedings were held to be within the available limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent notice under Section 148A(1) referring to the same assessment year, if issued in continuation of a prior notice and within the limitation period from the date of the prior notice, is valid. The writ petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amandeep Singh, proprietor of Guru Kripa Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, and the subsequent order under Section 148A(3) and notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner argued that a previous notice dated 29.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) was issued, and without dropping those proceedings, a fresh notice was issued. The petitioner contended that if the notice dated 13.06.2025 was considered a fresh notice, it would be time-barred. The respondent filed an affidavit clarifying that the notice dated 13.06.2025 was not a fresh notice but was in continuation of the proceedings initiated on 29.03.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-20, is a fresh notice or a continuation of the proceedings initiated by the notice dated 29.03.2025, and if it is a fresh notice, whether it is time-barred. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 148A(1) dated 13.06.2025, without dropping the previous proceedings initiated on 29.03.2025, implies that the earlier proceedings were dropped. The petitioner further contended that if the notice dated 13.06.2025 is treated as a fresh notice invoking jurisdiction, it is time-barred. Revenue's Contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner has misinterpreted the notice dated 13.06.2025. The respondent clarified that this notice was issued in continuation of the previous notice dated 29.03.2025 and not as a fresh notice. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the notice is time-barred is misconceived.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17076/2025 CM APPL. 70279/2025 AMANDEEP SINGH PROPRIETOR, GURU KRIPA ENTERPRISES

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Advs. versus OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv., CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

18.05.2026 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 and corresponding order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 and the notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 for AY 2019-20. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the respondent had earlier issued a notice dated 29.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 to the petitioner seeking reopening of petitioner’s assessment for AY 2019-20, and after the petitioner had filed the reply, another notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 dated 13.06.2025 came to be issued. 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 21/05/2026 at 13:03:50

3.

He argued that without dropping the previous proceedings, the respondent has issued a fresh notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961, which means that proceedings initiated earlier had been dropped. He added that if the notice issued under section 13.06.2020 is taken to be a notice invoking the jurisdiction, the same is time-barred. 4. The respondent has filed an affidavit in furtherance of the direction given by this Court on previous date of hearing i.e. 26.02.2026. 5. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the Assessing Officer (AO), we find that the subsequent notice dated 13.06.2025 is not a fresh notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961. It is in continuation of the proceedings which were triggered on 29.03.2025. 6. Mr. Abishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has misconstrued the notice dated 13.06.2025 to be a fresh notice. He added that although a reference of Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 has been made, but it is in continuation of the previous notice dated 29.03.2025 and not a fresh notice. He argued the petitioner’s contention that the instant notice dated 13.06.2025 is time-barred, is wholly misconceived. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. If the notice dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure-C) alone is seen, it prima-facie gives an impression that it is another jurisdictional notice, whereas if the material on record, including the affidavit filed by the respondent is taken into consideration, it is apparent that the notice dated 13.06.2025 is in continuation of the previous notice, which was issued on 29.03.2025. 9. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the proceedings being undertaken by the respondent, inasmuch as the same should be 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 21/05/2026 at 13:03:50

construed to have been initiated on 29.03.2025. Taken from 29.03.2025, the proceedings are within available limitation. 10. As an upsort of the discussion foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed and pending application is disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 18, 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 21/05/2026 at 13:03:50

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →