SUCHI AGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1) NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4484/2023HC DelhiDLHC01012470202313 February 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 impugned proceedings were covered by the concession made by the Assistant Solicitor General in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 INSC 754). Consequently, the Court found that the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16, were indeed time-barred. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated June 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act, the consequential orders dated June 29, 2022, and all prior and consequential proceedings. The writ petitions were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Suchi Agarwal and Bal Krishan Gupta, have filed writ petitions challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioners contend that these orders are time-barred. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), New Delhi. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned orders and the subsequent filing of writ petitions before the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated June 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16 are time-barred, concerning the applicability of the judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the impugned orders are time-barred, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 INSC 754). Revenue's Contentions: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that they were not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law presented by the petitioners. The Court noted that the impugned proceedings were covered by a concession given by the Assistant Solicitor General in the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 4484/2023
W.P.(C) 4629/2023

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

W.P.(C) 4484/2023 and 4629/2023 Page 1 of 2 $~2 & 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 4484/2023 & CM APPL. 17165/2023 SUCHI AGARWAL

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC and Mr. Rohit Chakraborty, Adv. (3) + W.P.(C) 4629/2023 & CM APPL. 17702/2023 BAL KRISHAN GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC and Mr. Rohit Chakraborty, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.02.2026 11:12:53 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 4484/2023 and 4629/2023 Page 2 of 2 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order in both the cases were issued on 29.06.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for Assessment Year 2015-16 and therefore, they are clearly time barred and covered by the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754. 2. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. 3. We find that impugned proceedings are covered by the concession given by the Assistant Solicitor General, who appeared for the Revenue in that case. 4. The impugned notice dated 29.06.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 and orders dated 29.06.2022 so also prior and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 5. Writ petitions are allowed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 13, 2026/cd Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.02.2026 11:12:53 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →