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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/583/2024HC DelhiDLHC01000949202429 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16 was time-barred. The reasoning was based on the fact that the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022, which falls within assessment year 2023-24. Calculating backward from the assessment year immediately preceding the relevant assessment year (AY 2023-24), which would be AY 2022-23 or AY 2021-22, and considering the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the limitation period for issuing such a notice would have expired. The Court found the notice to be time-barred on a plain reading of Sections 153A and 153C of the Act and in light of the precedent set in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The writ petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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, in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022. The notice pertained to assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act as they stood for assessment year 2015-16. The revenue's counsel acknowledged the facts but mentioned that an SLP was filed against a relevant High Court judgment. The Court noted that the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2023-24, making the notice issued on 25.07.2022 for assessment year 2015-16 time-barred, considering the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation, considering the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022. Assessee's Contentions: 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, as prevailing for assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ([2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi)). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel could not dispute the facts but submitted that an SLP against the judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. had 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) 583/2024 Page 1 of 3

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010009492024 + W.P.(C) 583/2024 & CM APPL. 2592/2024

PREETI CHADHA

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

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Mr. Saksham Sharma, Advs.

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 issued 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 2015-16. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:01.10.2026 19:50:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 583/2024 Page 2 of 3

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 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. 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 order passed on 25.07.2022 qua assessment year 2015-16 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 Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:01.10.2026 19:50:40 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 583/2024 Page 3 of 3

4 AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6th year AY 2017-18

7.

The notice impugned is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Sections 153A and 153C of 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →