DHIRESH GUPTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3033/2024HC DelhiDLHC01009755202411 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions. Following its own judgment in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi), the Court held that the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for each of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were beyond the period of limitation. The Court quashed these impugned notices. The ratio decidendi is that if the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C is linked to the date of a satisfaction note, and this date falls outside the statutory limitation period for issuing such notices for the relevant assessment years, then the notices are invalid. The operative direction was the quashing of the notices. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhiresh Gupta, filed multiple writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notices for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were issued beyond the period of limitation. This argument was based on the date of a satisfaction note, recorded as 24.06.2022, which the petitioner contended should be considered the date of initiating proceedings. The respondent-department, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not controvert this factual and legal position, although they mentioned an SLP was preferred against a relevant High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 are beyond the period of limitation, considering the date of the satisfaction note as 24.06.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that if the date of the satisfaction note (24.06.2022) is taken as the date for initiating proceedings, then the notices for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 are beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's Contention: The respondent-department, through its senior standing counsel, was not in a position to controvert the factual and legal position presented by the petitioner. However, it was stated that an SLP had been preferred against the judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

W.P.(C) 3032/2024
W.P.(C) 3033/2024
W.P.(C) 3057/2024
W.P.(C) 3059/2024

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

$~112, 113, 117 & 119 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 11th February, 2026. 112 + W.P.(C) 3032/2024, CM APPL. 12510/2024

DHIRESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Chaudhuri, Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs. 113

+ W.P.(C) 3033/2024, CM APPL. 12513/2024

DHIRESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Chaudhuri, Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs. 117 + W.P.(C) 3057/2024, CM APPL. 12578/2024

DHIRESH GUPTA Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:12.02.2026 18:12:03 Signature Not Verified .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Chaudhuri, Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs. 119 + W.P.(C) 3059/2024, CM APPL. 12582/2024

DHIRESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Chaudhuri, Mr. Kumail Abbas, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. Inviting Court’s attention towards satisfaction note which bears the date 24.06.2022 as referred to by the Assessing Officer of the searched Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:12.02.2026 18:12:03 Signature Not Verified party, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any event, the notices under Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) qua the present petitioner must have been issued thereafter. He argued that if such date (date of satisfaction note) i.e. 24.06.2022 is taken to be the date of notice or initiating proceedings, the notices for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 are beyond the period of limitation, as has been held by this Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 2. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent-department is not in a position to controvert this factual and legal position. He, however, submitted that the department has preferred an SLP against the judgment in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd (supra). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and following the judgment rendered in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), all these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned notices issued under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 for each of the Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 are quashed. 4. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA (JUDGE)

VINOD KUMAR (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ck Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:12.02.2026 18:12:03 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →