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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2986/2026HC DelhiDLHC01008182202601 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 High Court held that the impugned notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was fundamentally void and without jurisdiction. The Court found no doubt that the notice related to the very same transaction for which proceedings had already been taken and an assessment order dated March 31, 2025, had been passed. The Court reasoned that the income in question had already been brought to tax, meaning no income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the notice was beyond the scope of Section 148, as it sought to tax income that had already been taxed or sought to be taxed. 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. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Neeru Sehgal, challenged a notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She argued that for the same transaction and reason, proceedings under Section 148 were previously initiated via a notice dated March 30, 2024, which culminated in an assessment order dated March 31, 2025. The Revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute this factual position but contended that the petition suffered from delay and laches. The High Court noted that the impugned notice related to the same transaction already subjected to assessment.

What were the issues?

1. question: Whether the notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when prior proceedings for the same transaction had already concluded with an assessment order dated March 31, 2025? assessee_contention: The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was bad in law as it was issued for the same reason and transaction for which earlier proceedings under Section 148 were initiated and concluded with an assessment order. The notice was therefore redundant and without jurisdiction. revenue_contention: The Revenue did not dispute the factual position regarding the prior proceedings but argued that the petition suffered from delay and laches. The Revenue did not provide specific arguments against the validity of the notice on merits, other than the procedural delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~8 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010081822026 + W.P.(C) 2986/2026, CM APPL. 14428/2026 & CM APPL. 14429/2026 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 1961 were earlier initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2024 and culminated in an assessment order dated 31.03.2025. 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 12:33:02

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 31.03.2025. 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 31.03.2025. 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 12:33:02

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →