SWADESHI TUBES LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2214/2023HC DelhiDLHC01005583202330 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a chart, which was filed in the writ petition, before the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. This procedure was adopted in line with the Supreme Court's order in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the legality and validity of the notices and order but provided a procedural path for resolution. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving challenges to reassessment proceedings where the Revenue consents to a remand, the High Court can direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after providing a hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Swadeshi Tubes Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging various notices and an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi, concerning Assessment Year 2014-15. The impugned notices included a notice under Section 148 dated June 29, 2021, subsequent notices under Section 148A(b) dated May 26, 2022, and an order under Section 148A(d) along with a consequential notice dated July 27, 2022. The petitioner contended that these actions were illegal, unlawful, jurisdictionally flawed, based on invalid reasons, vague, irrelevant, time-barred, and violated principles of natural justice. The Revenue suggested remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 (unamended law) dated June 29, 2021, is illegal and unlawful, being jurisdictionally flawed and based on invalid foundational reasons, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the subsequent notices issued under Section 148A(b) dated May 26, 2022, are illegal and unlawful, lacking the jurisdictional prerequisites of Explanation 1 to Section 148 and Section 149(1)(b) (amended law), and based on vague, irrelevant, or extraneous material, as argued by the petitioner? 3. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice dated July 27, 2022, are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, time-barred under Section 149(1), without authority of law, ultra vires to Section 151A and CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022, contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice (denial of oral hearing, cross-examination, and non-consideration of submitted documents), as argued by the petitioner? The Revenue argued that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer for application of mind to the facts and law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149(1),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 2214/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 2214/2023

SWADESHI TUBES LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 and has been filed with the following prayers: “ a. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned foundational notice issued u/s 148 (unamended law) dated 29.06.2021 is illegal and unlawful , being jurisdictionally flawed being based on invalid foundational reasons ; b. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned subsequent notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022 sans jurisdictional pre requisite of expl 1 to sec 148 being fulfilled in extant case/sec 149(1)(b) of 1961 Act (amended law); c. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned subsequent notice Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 2214/2023 Page 2 of 3

issued u/s 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022 being based on vague and irrelevant/extraneous basis sans any valid tangible material; d. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) and consequential notice dated 27.07.2022 being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, time barred us 149(1), without authority of law and lacking. e. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) and consequential notice dated 27.07.2022 being ultra vires to sec 151A and CBDT notification dated 29 march 2022 and time barred u/s 149(1); f. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) and consequential notice dated 27.07.2022 which is ultravires and time barred, contrary to the 1961 Act and it is against the tests specified under article of 14 of constitution of India; passed in violation of principle of natural justice(by denying oral hearing and requested cross examination and not considering the detailed supporting documents submitted u/s 148A reply ) g. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or an order prohibiting the operation of the proceedings as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case as initiated by the respondent u/s148 of the 1961 Act;.. ”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in view of the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC), by this Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr 2025:DHC:547-DB and also of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others 2025:MPHC-IND:19495 and also in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 29.06.2021(u/s 148), subsequent notice(s) dated 26.05.2022(u/s 148A(b)), order dated 27.07.2022 (u/s 148A(d)), and consequential notice dated 27.07.2022 are liable to be set aside. Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 2214/2023 Page 3 of 3

3.

The submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the appropriate shall be that the matter be sent back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind on the facts which arises for consideration in this petition and keeping in view the position of law pass appropriate orders. 4. In fact our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited : SLP(C) Diary No. 56889/2024 decided on 24.02.2025 wherein a similar procedure has been adopted/directed. 5. If that be so, the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the chart as has been filed by the petitioner in this writ petition before the Court today, before the Assessing Officer on the date and time fixed by the Assessing Officer, to be communicated to the petitioner herein. 6. The Assessing Officer shall give a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. 7. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J JULY 30, 2025 tg Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 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 →