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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2985/2026HC DelhiDLHC01008190202601 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 was fundamentally void and without jurisdiction. The Court found no doubt that the notice related to the very same transaction for which assessment proceedings had already been completed by the Assessing Officer, resulting in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The Court further reasoned that the impugned notice was beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income had already been brought to tax. Therefore, the notice was deemed illegal and liable to be quashed. The Court also addressed the delay and laches argument, stating that since the notice was fundamentally void, the delay of 18 months was not substantial enough to be fatal to the petition's maintainability. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Neeru Sehgal, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that for the same reason and transaction, a notice under Section 148 was previously issued on 30.03.2024, which culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute this factual position but argued that the petition suffered from delay and laches. The High Court considered the impugned notice to be fundamentally void and without jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed as being fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, given that a prior notice under Section 148 for the same transaction had already led to an assessment order dated 30.03.2025? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was bad in law as it was issued for the same reason and transaction for which proceedings under Section 148 were already initiated and concluded with an assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the petition suffered from delay and laches.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~7 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010081902026 + W.P.(C) 2985/2026, CM APPL. 14424/2026 & CM APPL. 14425/2026 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 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 148 of the Act of 1961were earlier initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2024 and culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025. 2. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid position of fact and law.He, 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 12:33:03

however, submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, we have no iota of doubt that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 relates to the very same transaction, for which proceedings against the petitioner had been taken up by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the same had led to assessment order dated 30.03.2025. 4. So far as the question of delay is concerned, we find that the impugned notice is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, and the petition has been filed within 18 months, the delay is thus not substantial to be fatal to the petition’s maintainability. 5. Furthermore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income has not escaped assessment, for it had already been brought to tax by way of above referred assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The impugned notice thus, seeks to tax the very same income, which has been taxed or was sought to be taxed. The notice is therefore, clearly illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The writ petition is 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 12:33:03

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →