B.C.ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6277/2023HC DelhiDLHC01018002202330 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 High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a chart, as filed in the writ petition, to the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner's representative and pass an appropriate order within four weeks as an outer limit. The Court did not decide the merits of the challenges to the notices and notifications but instead facilitated a procedural resolution based on the submissions of both parties and the precedent from the Supreme Court in Reliance Industries Limited. The operative direction is for a fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer after a hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, B.C. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging various notices and orders related to the assessment year 2014-15. The impugned actions included an initial notice under Section 148 dated 07.06.2021, subsequent notices dated 17.05.2022 and 05.07.2022, an order under Section 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022, and a further notice under Section 148 dated 26.07.2022. The petitioner also sought to declare certain TOLA notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 as ultra vires. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3) Delhi, suggested remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notices and order under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15 are illegal, unlawful, lacking jurisdiction, and time-barred? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 148, 148A, 149, and 151A). 2. Whether the TOLA notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are ultra vires Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law, turning on Section 149). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order are liable to be set aside, citing judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr, and 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 matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the facts and law, referencing a similar direction from 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 149,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 6277/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 6277/2023

B.C.ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3) DELHI .....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) 2014-15. Though, this petition 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 07.06.2021 which is illegal , unlawful , lacking jurisdiction and time barred; B. Further humble declaration is prayed from this Hon’ble Constitutional Court, to declare as annul the two “controversial” notifications issued under provisions of TOLA notification dated 31.03.2021 & 27.04.2021 bearing ref. no. Notification no.20/2021 & 38/2021 being ultra vires to sec. 149 specially; C. 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 17.05.2022 & 05.07.2022 being illegal, time barred, and lacking jurisdiction; D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6277/2023 Page 2 of 3

and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 being based on totally wrong and factually incorrect information as supplied u/s 148A(b) on 17.05.2022/05.07.2022, totally bereft of any semblance of worthwhile reasoning; E. 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 dated 26.07.2022 being time barred, jurisdictionally flawed and based on unlawful and illegal order passed u/s 148A(d); F. 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; G. 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;.. ”

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 of 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 the factual position which emerges in the petition, that is the impugned notice dated 07.06.2021(u/s 148) and the subsequent notices dated 17.05.2022/05.07.2022 and order dated 26.07.2022(u/s 148A(d) and the notice dated 26.07.2022(u/s 148) 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 remanded back to the Assessing Officer to enable the him to apply his mind on the facts and law which arises for consideration in this petition and pass appropriate orders. 4. In fact our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6277/2023 Page 3 of 3

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited : SLP(C) Diary No. 56889/2024 decided on 24.02.2025 wherein a similar direction has been given. 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 this writ petition before the Court today to 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 representative of the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate order within four weeks as an outer limit thereafter. 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 →