MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 1 DELHI ANR & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/19288/2025HC DelhiDLHC01103922202519 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the orders passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were unsustainable as they did not reveal the grounds or reasons on which the Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed with the petitioner's replies to the Section 148A(1) notices. The Court found these orders to be devoid of reasons, especially considering the petitioner's detailed responses. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notices dated 29.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act in both petitions were set aside. The matters were remanded back to the AO for passing reasoned orders afresh, based on the petitioner's replies to the Section 148A(1) notices. The AO was directed to provide the information he intended to rely upon, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file additional replies within two weeks of receiving such information. The AO was to complete this exercise within eight weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MakeMyTrip India Private Limited, filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging notices issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, orders passed under Section 148A(3), and consequential notices under Section 148 of the Act. These actions pertained to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 and AY 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the Section 148A(1) notices were vague, merely referencing a "Search and seizure under section 132 on MLBEs of Insurance Sector (Ajay Mehta Group)" without specifying reasons for alleged escaped income. The petitioner claimed to have provided detailed replies regarding the receipt of specific amounts (Rs. 11,00,80,752/- and Rs. 39,27,95,754/-), which were not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the Section 148A(3) orders. The Revenue contended that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to an investigation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are vague and do not specify the reasons for alleging that the petitioner's income has escaped assessment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Section 148A(1)? Assessee's Contention: The Section 148A(1) notices are vague, lacking specific reasons for escaped income, and merely refer to a search and seizure operation. The petitioner's detailed replies regarding the receipt of substantial amounts were not considered by the AO in the Section 148A(3) orders. The notices under Section 148A(1), orders under Section 148A(3), and notices under Section 148 are unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The notices and subsequent orders were issued pursuant to an investigation by the AO, justifying the initiation of proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 19288/2025
W.P.(C) 19296/2025

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

W.P. (C) 19288 & 19296 of 2025 Page 1 of 4

$~30 & 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 19.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 19288/2025 & CM APPL. 80507-08/2025; W.P.(C) 19296/2025 & CM APPL. 80553-54/2025

MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sachit Jolly, Sr Advocate with Mr Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Mr Sohum Dua, Ms Manvi and Ms. Ghunaim Siddiqui, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 1 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms Easha Gurung, JSC.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1.

These petitions [W.P.(C) 19288/2025 & W.P.(C) 19296/2025] have been filed by the petitioner in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 and AY 2020-21, respectively with common prayers:- “a) a writ in the nature of Certiorari, mandamus or any order appropriate writ for quashing of the Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.12.2025 13:12:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 19288 & 19296 of 2025 Page 2 of 4

Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act, Impugned Order dated 29.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, Impugned Notice dated 29.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the subject AY by the Respondents and all consequential proceedings thereto; and”

2.

In effect, the challenge in these petitions is to the notices dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); orders dated 29.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act; and notices of the same date under Section 148 of the Act in respect of relevant AYs. 3. Mr Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to page no.45 of W.P.(C) 19288/2025 and page no. 37 of W.P.(C) 19296/2025 which are notices issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act to contend that they are vague notices and does not specify the reasons to allege that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment except stating in paragraph no.3.1; “Search and seizure under section 132 on MLBEs of Insurance Sector (Ajay Mehta Group)”. He states that, the petitioner has given replies to the notices issued by the respondents specifying the reasons/manner of receipt of Rs.11,00,80,752/-and Rs.39,27,95,754/- but the same have not been considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the orders under Section 148A(3) of the Act; as such the notices under Section 148A(1); orders under Section 148A(3), and notices under Section 148 of the Act, need to be set aside. 4. In this regard, Mr Jolly has relied upon the provision of Section Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.12.2025 13:12:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 19288 & 19296 of 2025 Page 3 of 4

148A(1) of the Act to contend that the provision itself contemplates that the notice to show cause shall be accompanied by the information, which suggest that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the relevant AY. 5. On the other hand, Mr Siddhartha Sinha, learned SSC appearing for the Revenue, would justify the notices which have been issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act; orders passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act; and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, stating that, it is pursuant to the investigation that the proceedings have been initiated by the AO. 6. Suffice to state that, on a perusal of the orders passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act the same does not reveal the grounds/reasons on which the AO has disagreed with the replies filed by the petitioner, to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The same being devoid of reasons more particularly, considering the stand taken by the petitioner in its replies to notices under Section 148A(1) of the Act, the orders under Section 148A(3) dated 29.06.2025; the notices issued under Section 148 of the same date have to be held as unsustainable. 7. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 29.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act; and the consequential notices dated 29.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act (in both the petitions) and remand the matters back to the AO for passing reasoned orders, afresh on the basis of the replies given by the petitioner to the notices under Section 148A(1) of the Act. 8. We also make it clear that the petitioner in its replies dated Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.12.2025 13:12:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 19288 & 19296 of 2025 Page 4 of 4

28.03.2025 has also stated that the notices issued by the respondents are incomplete as same does not provide complete information. 9. Suffice to state that the AO shall give the information which he intends to rely upon while deciding notices under Section 148A(1) of the Act. Liberty shall be with the petitioner to file additional reply(ies) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such information from the AO. The AO shall complete the exercise in terms of this order within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of the order. On passing of order, both the parties shall proceed in accordance with law. 10. The petitions are disposed. The pending applications are disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

DECEMBER 19, 2025 M

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.12.2025 13:12:52 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 →