DOLF LEASING LTD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 1 DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/18241/2025HC DelhiDLHC01095959202501 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to consider the submissions made by the petitioner on January 31, 2025, and decide the issue of limitation raised therein as a preliminary issue. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had raised a specific plea based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, and the Revenue did not contest the filing of these submissions, it was appropriate for the CIT(A) to address this preliminary issue. The Court mandated that the CIT(A) must decide this preliminary issue within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It was further clarified that no proceedings would be held on the notices issued under Sections 154 and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, until the issue of limitation is decided. The operative direction was for the CIT(A) to decide the preliminary issue of limitation, and parties are to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The Court did not decide the merits of the limitation claim itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dolf Leasing Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices and orders issued under Sections 148, 148A(d), 147, 144B, 154, and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Although the petitioner had initially approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] after the assessment order, they did not raise the point of limitation before the CIT(A) at that stage. However, subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, the petitioner filed submissions before the CIT(A) on January 31, 2025, specifically relying on this judgment to argue the limitation issue. The revenue did not contest that these submissions were filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner are barred by limitation, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (Supra)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (Supra) to support their claim. The petitioner stated that this judgment was delivered subsequent to the assessment order and the filing of their appeal before the CIT(A), which is why the point of limitation was not initially urged before the lower authorities. They further clarified that they did raise the issue of limitation before the CIT(A) in their submissions dated January 31, 2025, relying on the Rajeev Bansal judgment, but this issue had not yet been decided. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue, through its learned Junior Standing Counsel, did not contest the fact that the petitioner had filed submissions before the CIT(A) wherein the plea based on the Rajeev Bansal judgment was taken.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 154,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 18241/2025 Page 1 of 3 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision : 01.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 18241/2025, CM APPL. 75414/2025 DOLF LEASING LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Somnathanam, Mr. Rishabh and Mr. Deepak, Advs. versus ACIT CIRCLE 7 1 DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC, Ms. Sanjeev Menon, JSC and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “A) To issue writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the illegal notice u/s. 148 dt. 30.7.2022 and illegal order u/s. 148A(d) dt. 30.7.2022 (Annexures No. 5 & 6) and declare the same as barred by limitation, without jurisdiction and unauthorized by law. B) To issue writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the illegal order of reassessment dt. 27.05.2023 u/s 147 read with 144B by NFAC and declare the same as void ab initio and non-est in law and Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.12.2025 18:20:09 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 18241/2025 Page 2 of 3 consequently quash the illegal demands of income-tax and interest raised thereunder by the respondent. C) To quash the illegal notice for rectification dt. 14.11.2025 u/s. 154 and declare the same as unsustainable and unauthorized by law. D) To quash the illegal notice for revision u/s. 263 dt. 18.11.2025 as wholly without jurisdiction and impermissible in law. E) To stay the proceedings before the respondents pursuant to the above notices and orders which are impugned in this petition. F) To summon the records of lower authorities. G) To grant early out of turn hearing to the petitioner. H) To award costs.” 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order has approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT (Appeals)”] but in view of settled position of law by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for reassessment being barred by limitation, the petitioner has approached this Court vide this petition. He clarifies that as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was subsequent to the assessment order and also after the filing of the appeal by the petitioner before the CIT (Appeals), the petitioner did not approach this Court or urged the point of limitation before the said Authorities. 3. He states that, on 31.01.2025, submissions have been filed by the Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.12.2025 18:20:09 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 18241/2025 Page 3 of 3 petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) after receipt of notice from the CIT (Appeals) wherein, the petitioner herein had taken a specific plea by relying upon the judgment in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), but the issue has not been decided till date. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue do not contest the fact that the submissions have been filed wherein the petitioner has taken a plea based on Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. If that be so, appropriate shall be that a direction is given by this Court to CIT (Appeals) to consider the submissions made by the petitioner on 31.01.2025 and decide the issue of limitation raised, as a preliminary issue. Once a decision is taken by CIT (Appeals), the parties shall proceed in accordance with law. 6. It is directed that the CIT (Appeals) shall decide the preliminary issue based on the submissions filed, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. It is made clear till such time the issue of limitation is decided, no proceedings shall be held on the two notices issued under Sections 154 and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 01, 2025/sr Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.12.2025 18:20:09 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →