SUPERSHINE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Revenue produced an order dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which centralized assessments and included the Petitioner. This order, therefore, conferred jurisdiction on the AO. The Petitioner then sought to challenge this Section 127 order on new grounds, which were not initially raised in the petition. The Court found it inapposite to entertain these new contentions, especially since the Petitioner was also challenging the reassessment order on merits. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, leaving it open for the Petitioner to avail statutory remedies against the reassessment order. The Court also extended the time for filing an appeal by two weeks and clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved, allowing the Petitioner to assail the impugned order on grounds urged in the petition and to avail other remedies concerning the Section 127 order.
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, Supershine Laundry Systems Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging an order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, citing non-compliance with Section 148A, lack of proper sanction under Section 151, and absence of territorial jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Petitioner also sought to challenge additions made on merits. The Revenue initially raised a preliminary issue regarding the availability of an efficacious remedy of appeal. The Court, while initially disinclined to entertain the petitions, agreed to examine the jurisdiction issue. The Revenue then produced an order dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 127 of the Act, centralizing assessments, which included the Petitioner. The Petitioner then sought to challenge this Section 127 order, which was not initially pleaded.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 147 are without jurisdiction, considering the Petitioner's contention of non-compliance with Section 148A, lack of sanction under Section 151, and absence of territorial jurisdiction by the AO. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the AO lacked territorial jurisdiction as the Petitioner is an assessee in Gurugram, and the notice under Section 148 was issued by an AO in Delhi. They also contended that no order under Section 127 of the Act centralizing the assessment was passed. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue initially raised a preliminary issue regarding the efficacious remedy of appeal. Subsequently, they produced an order under Section 127 of the Act, which, if valid, would confer jurisdiction on the AO. The Revenue submitted that if an order under Section 127 was passed, the impugned orders could not be considered wholly without jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
W.P.(C) 4773/2025 & W.P.(C)4789/2025 Page 1 of 4
$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 28.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4773/2025, CM APPL. 21987/2025 & CM APPL. 21989/2025
+ W.P.(C) 4789/2025, CM APPL. 22031/2025 & CM APPL. 22033/2025
SUPERSHINE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar, Ms. Puja Jakhar, Mr. Gagandeep, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC; Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSC and Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 20.03.2025 [impugned order] passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The Petitioner assails the impugned order on several grounds including that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, whereby the reassessment proceedings were initiated, is without jurisdiction. This contention is premised on the ground that the procedure Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2025 15:45:23 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4773/2025 & W.P.(C)4789/2025 Page 2 of 4
under Section 148A was not followed; the proper sanction was not obtained under Section 151 of the Act; and, that the Assessing Officer [AO] had no territorial jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act or to conduct the reassessment proceedings. 2. Additionally, the Petitioner also seeks to challenge the additions made in terms of the impugned reassessment order on merits. The present petitions were listed before this court on 16.04.2025 and this court had passed the following order: “W.P.(C) 4773/2025 & CMAPPL. 21987/2025(Stay) CM APPL. 21989/2025(Addl.documents) W.P.(C) 4789/2025 & CM APPL. 22031/2025(Stay) CM APPL. 22033/2025(Addl.documents)
The petitioner has filed the present petitions, inter alia, impugning the order(s) dated 20.03.2025 [impugned orders] passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act].
The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue raised the preliminary issue regarding the petitioner having efficacious remedy of appeal under the Act.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present petitions. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer [AO] who has passed the impugned orders did not have the jurisdiction to do so. He submits that the petitioner is an assessee in Gurugram and the notice under Section 148 of the Act pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings have commenced were issued by the AO in Delhi. He also submits that no order has been passed under Section 127 of the Act centralising the assessment with the concerned AO.
In view of the above, we consider it apposite to examine whether the impugned orders are passed wholly without any jurisdiction.
Mr Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2025 15:45:23 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4773/2025 & W.P.(C)4789/2025 Page 3 of 4
submits that an order under Section 127 of the Act has been passed. However, he requires to take confirm instructions in this regard. Clearly, if an order under Section 127 of the Act has been passed, the impugned orders cannot be stated to be wholly without jurisdiction.
We accordingly, adjourn the present petitions to enable Mr Chandra to obtain the instructions from the Department.
At his request, list on 28.04.2025.”
Mr. Chandra, learned counsel for the Revenue has handed over a copy of the order dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 127 of the Act whereby the assessments in respect of several assessees were centralised. The Petitioner’s name features at Serial No. 85 of the said list. Thus, there is no dispute that an order under Section 127 of the Act, conferring jurisdiction on the AO, was passed. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner now seeks to assail the order passed under Section 127 of the Act and has advanced submissions on two fronts: first, that the order passed under Section 127 of the Act is invalid on the ground that it assumes that the Petitioner is an assessee located in Delhi; and second, that no notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing the said order. Clearly, none of these grounds find mention in the present petition as according to the Petitioner, no such order existed. 5. Insofar as other contentions are concerned, considering that the Petitioner is also challenging the assessment order on merits, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the same. In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by leaving it open for the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedies. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2025 15:45:23 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4773/2025 & W.P.(C)4789/2025 Page 4 of 4
At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner requests that the time for filing the appeal against the impugned order may be extended as the same has elapsed. Mr. Chandra, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that he has no objection, if the same is extended by a period of two weeks. 7. In view of the above, we direct that in the event the Petitioner avails the statutory remedies in respect of the impugned order within a period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered by the concerned authority uninfluenced by the question of delay. 8. We also clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved and the Petitioner would not be precluded from assailing the impugned order, inter alia, on the grounds as urged in the present petition. Additionally, we clarify that the Petitioner is also at liberty to avail other remedies in respect of the order dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 127 of the Act. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 28, 2025/sms
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2025 15:45:23 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sri Sai Poornima Microns vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner(St)Andhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Pollisetti Venkata Ramakrishna vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Ayyappa Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State TaxAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Commissioner Of Customs(Airport And General), New Delhi vs. M/S Mauli Worldwide LogisticsDelhi · 2 Nov 2026
- Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026