ANJU SHARMA vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1), DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/19348/2025HC DelhiDLHC01103983202522 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 17, 2021, and all consequential proceedings, including the order under Section 148A(d) dated July 20, 2022, the assessment order under Section 147 dated May 30, 2023, the rectification order under Section 154 dated October 23, 2025, and the demand notice dated October 23, 2025, are barred by limitation. The Court relied on the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754, where the Revenue had made a concession. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings. The petition was disposed of, and the pending application was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anju Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 17, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petition also challenged consequential proceedings, including an order under Section 148A(d) dated July 20, 2022, an assessment order under Section 147 dated May 30, 2023, a rectification order under Section 154 dated October 23, 2025, and a demand notice dated October 23, 2025. The primary contention was that these proceedings were barred by limitation due to a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 17, 2021, and all consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 are barred by limitation, in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754? Assessee's Contention: The proceedings initiated by the notice dated June 17, 2021, and all subsequent actions are time-barred. This is based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which, according to the petitioner, invalidates these proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents did not seriously contest the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the limitation issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19348/2025 & CM APPL. 80725/2025 ANJU SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samyak Gangwal and Ms. Tanvi Bhadhana, Advs. versus OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 22.12.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 17.06.2021 and all consequential proceedings [including the order under Section 148A(d) dated 20.07.2022, the Assessment Order under Section 147 dated 30.05.2023, the Rectification Order under Section 154 dated 23.10.2025, and the Notice of Demand dated 23.10.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16]; and/or b) Pass an order for costs in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; and/or” 2. The submission is primarily that the proceedings which have been initiated pursuant to the notice dated 17.06.2021 under Section 148 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 26/12/2025 at 12:46:05

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 and all consequential proceedings are barred by limitation in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned SSC for the respondents do not seriously contest the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. We also find that order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 20.07.2022; assessment order under Section 147 of the Act was passed on 30.05.2023 and even a rectification order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 23.10.2025 followed by a demand notice dated 23.10.2025. 5. If that be so, in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 17.06.2021 and all consequential proceedings as referred to above being barred by limitation are invalid and are liable to be quashed. We order so. 6. The petition is disposed of. 7. The pending application is disposed of as having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 22, 2025 rk 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 26/12/2025 at 12:46:05

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →