RAJESH AGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5122/2023HC DelhiDLHC01014688202330 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a chart, which was filed in court, to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is mandated to provide a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a maximum period of four weeks. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's approach in *Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited*, where a similar procedural direction was given. The Court did not definitively rule on the legality or validity of the notices and order but rather facilitated a fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer, incorporating the petitioner's submissions and relevant legal precedents. The operative direction is a remand for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices and an order related to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The impugned actions included an initial notice under Section 148 dated 17.06.2021, subsequent notices dated 24.05.2022, an order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 28.06.2022, and another notice under Section 148 dated 29.06.2022. The petitioner sought to quash these actions on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, being time-barred, and violation of statutory provisions and CBDT notifications. The Revenue suggested that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notices and order under Sections 148, 148A(d), and 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are illegal, time-barred, and lack jurisdiction, thereby warranting quashing? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order are liable to be set aside based on the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in *Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal* (2024) and by the Delhi High Court in *Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.*, as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court in *Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others*. The petitioner also contended that the proceedings violated Section 151A and relevant CBDT Notifications. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appropriate course of action would be to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the facts and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Revenue referred to a similar procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in *Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited*.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 149(1),Section 151A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 5122/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 5122/2023 CM APPL. 20032/2023

RAJESH AGARWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and has has been filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned initial notice u/s 148 dated 17.06.2021 which is illegal, unlawful, lacking jurisdiction; B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned subsequent notice(s) dated 24.05.2022 being illegal, time barred, and lacking jurisdiction; C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 28.06.2022 being in violation of mandate of 1961 Act (specifically specific and special provision of sec. 153C which is violated fully) and is totally contrary to law (based on incomplete material) and time barred u/s 149(1) of 1961 Act; D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned notice u/s 148 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 5122/2023 Page 2 of 3

dated 29.06.2022 being based on mechanical order u/s 148A(d) lacking jurisdiction on part of respondent; E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s 148/148A in violation of sec. 151A and relevant CBDT Notification; F. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or an order prohibiting the operation of the impugned proceedings u/s 148, as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case as initiated by the respondent u/s 148/148A of the 1961 Act; G. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate may please give order to grant interim relief to the petitioner by staying the operation of impugned order passed by respondent u/s 148A(d)/consequential notice u/s 148, which suffers from series of jurisdictional errors as pointed above;..”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in view of the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC), by this Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2025:DHC:547-DB and also by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others 2025:MPHC-IND:19495 and also in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 17.06.2021 and the subsequent notice(s) dated 24.05.2022 and order dated 28.06.2022 and notice dated 29.06.2022 are liable to be set aside. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the appropriate shall be that the matter be sent back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind on the facts which arises for consideration in this petition and keeping in view the position of law pass appropriate orders. 4. In fact our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Deputy Commissioner of Income Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 5122/2023 Page 3 of 3

Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited” SLP(C) Diary No. 56889/2024 decided on 24.02.2025 wherein a similar procedure has been adopted/directed. 5. If that be so, the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the chart as has been filed by the petitioner in the Court today, before the Assessing Officer on the date and time fixed by the Assessing Officer, to be communicated to the petitioner herein. 6. The Assessing Officer shall give a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. 7. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J JULY 30, 2025 tg

Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →