PREETI CHADHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/580/2024HC DelhiDLHC01000946202429 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice dated 25.07.2022 under Section 153C for assessment year 2016-17 was time-barred. The Court reasoned that the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022, which falls within assessment year 2023-24. Calculating backward from the preceding year (AY 2022-23 or FY 2021-22), and considering that the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the limitation period would be 6 years. The notice issued on 25.07.2022 was therefore beyond this period. The Court found the issue squarely covered by its own judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Preeti Chadha, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17. This notice was issued in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022 recorded by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time period under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act. The revenue acknowledged that the facts were similar to a previous judgment but mentioned that an SLP was filed against it before the Supreme Court. The High Court noted that the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2023-24, making the notice issued on 25.07.2022 for AY 2016-17 time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.07.2022 under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, issued in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022, is beyond the time period prescribed under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act, as prevailing at the relevant time. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961. They relied on the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's Contention: The revenue could not dispute the facts but submitted that an SLP against the cited judgment has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 580/2024 Page 1 of 3

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010009462024 + W.P.(C) 580/2024 & CM APPL. 2583/2024

PREETI CHADHA

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

1.

By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.07.2022 under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) in furtherance of the satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022 recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice has been passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:01.10.2026 19:50:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 580/2024 Page 2 of 3

relevant time (AY 2016-17). 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. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 4. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved. He, however, submitted that an SLP against the said judgment has been filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It does not need much discussion that as the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022, i.e. in the assessment year 2023-24, the notice passed on 25.07.2022 qua assessment year 2016-17 is clearly beyond the limitation period (which shall be 6 years as the escaped income is less than Rs.50,00,000/-), if calculated backward from immediately preceding year from the relevant assessment year i.e. 2023-24, which means financial year 2021-22 or assessment year 2022-23. For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year 1 AY 2022-23 2 AY 2021-22 3 AY 2020-21 4 AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6th year AY 2017-18 Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:01.10.2026 19:50:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 580/2024 Page 3 of 3

7.

The notice impugned is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Sections 153A and 153C of the Act of (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) so also in light of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. The writ petition is allowed, the notice dated 25.07.2022 is quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE

ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ck Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:01.10.2026 19:50:40 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →