ASHWANI KUMAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4073/2026HC DelhiDLHC01012561202607 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated 20.02.2026, issued for assessment year 2015-16, was time-barred. The Court reasoned that since a search was conducted on 07.05.2024, the relevant assessment year would be 2025-26. Therefore, a notice for assessment year 2015-16, calculated backward from 2025-26, clearly falls beyond the permissible period of 10 years. The Court quashed the impugned notice, relying on its previous decision in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, challenged a notice dated 20.02.2026 issued by the DCIT Central Circle 28, Delhi, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time period under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as it prevailed for AY 2015-16. The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The respondent's counsel could not dispute the facts. The Court noted that a search was conducted on 07.05.2024, making AY 2025-26 the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice for AY 2015-16 was considered beyond the 10-year period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 20.02.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16 is beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act, as prevailing at the relevant time? Assessee's contention: The notice is time-barred as it falls outside the permissible period under the relevant provisions of the Act. The assessee relies on the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ([2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi)). Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel could not dispute the facts presented by the assessee regarding the time limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4073/2026, CM APPL. 19984/2026 & CM APPL. 19985/2026

ASHWANI KUMAR

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Subham Gupta & Mr. Varsha Sharma, Advocates.

versus

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R %

07.05.2026 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.02.2026 issued by respondent for assessment year 2015-16 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice is clearly beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 read with Section 153A of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2015-16). 3. He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 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 11/05/2026 at 13:04:46

reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Needless to mention that since the search was conducted on 07.05.2024, the relevant assessment year is 2025-26. Therefore, the notice impugned issued qua assessment year 2015-16 is clearly beyond the period of 10 years, if calculated backward from assessment year 2025-26. 7. The notice impugned is, thus, quashed being time-barred. (In re: Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra)). 8. The writ petition is allowed. Pending applications stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. MAY 7, 2026/nk

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 11/05/2026 at 13:04:46

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →