MRS NEERU SEHGAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1886/2026HC DelhiDLHC01004854202601 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Court found that the transaction in question, involving an amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- given in cash to Mr. Sachiv Sahni through Mr. Arjun Malhotra, had been examined in detail by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. The fact that the AO had issued a questionnaire and examined the transaction thoroughly, even though no addition was made, indicated that the subsequent notice under Section 148 was based on a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the Court concluded that such a notice was beyond the scope of the provisions contained in Section 147/148 of the Act. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Neeru Sehgal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) for the same assessment year were already underway and had culminated in an assessment order dated 20.03.2025. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) had examined a specific transaction involving Rs. 85,00,000/- given in cash to Mr. Sachiv Sahni through Mr. Arjun Malhotra. The revenue's counsel could not dispute these facts. The AO had issued a questionnaire and examined the transaction in detail, ultimately making no addition as they were satisfied with the petitioner's reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid when assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) for the same assessment year were already underway and had culminated in an assessment order dated 20.03.2025, concerning the same transaction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 notice was invalid because the AO had already examined the very same transaction in detail during the ongoing Section 143(3) assessment proceedings, which had concluded with an assessment order. This constituted a mere change of opinion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel could not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~52 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010048542026 + W.P.(C) 1886/2026, CM APPL. 9158/2026 &CM APPL. 9159/2026 MRS NEERU SEHGAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Upvan Gupta, Adv. versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 NEW DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC and Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC with Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Prateek Bhati, Advs. for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV O R D E R %

01.09.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) on various grounds, including the ground that for the very same reason and in respect of the very same transaction, proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961were underway and the same had culminated in an assessment order dated 20.03.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the notice impugned was issued, assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the 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 03/09/2026 at 12:33:08

Act of 1961 for the very same assessment year were already being undertaken and the transaction in question,was under consideration of the Assessing Officer (AO) and as a matter of fact, he had issued questionnaire in this regard and examined the transaction in detail, (though made no addition being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner). 3. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the assessment order dated 20.03.2025, so also show-cause notice dated 28.02.2025, we find that a question in relation to an amount of Rs. 85,00,000/-being given in cash to Mr. Sachiv Sahni through Mr. Arjun Malhotra was very much examined in detail qua which the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has been issued. 5. Considering that during the course of scrutiny assessment, this very transaction had been examined in detail by the AO, the impugned notice is nothing more than a mere change of opinion and is, therefore, beyond the scope of provisions contained in Section 147/148 the Act of 1961. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 is hereby quashed. 7. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2026/sds 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 03/09/2026 at 12:33:08

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →