ROOPA GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6760/2023HC DelhiDLHC01019334202330 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 petition by directing the petitioner to submit a chart, as filed before the Assessing Officer, to the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. This approach was adopted in line with a similar procedure directed by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the legality, jurisdiction, and time-bar of the notices and orders but rather facilitated a process for the Assessing Officer to consider the matter afresh. The operative direction is for a fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer after a hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Roopa Goyal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging various notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1), Delhi, concerning Assessment Year 2014-15. The impugned actions included an initial notice under Section 148 dated June 23, 2021, subsequent notices dated May 25, 2022, an order passed under Section 148A(d) dated July 22, 2022, and a notice under Section 148 dated July 22, 2022. The petitioner argued that these actions were illegal, unlawful, lacked jurisdiction, were time-barred, and violated specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including Section 153C and Section 149(1). The petitioner also contended that the proceedings were based on ultra vires CBDT instructions and notifications and that the order under Section 148A(d) was based on incorrect information and lacked reasoning.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initial notice under Section 148 dated June 23, 2021, the subsequent notices dated May 25, 2022, the order under Section 148A(d) dated July 22, 2022, and the notice under Section 148 dated July 22, 2022, are illegal, unlawful, lack jurisdiction, and are time-barred, thereby violating Section 153C and Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the proceedings under Section 148/148A for AY 2014-2015 are based on ultra vires CBDT instructions and Notification, and in violation of Section 151A/CBDT notification? 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 by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, by the Delhi High Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others. The petitioner also contended that the notices and order were time-barred, lacked jurisdiction, violated Section 153C, were based on incorrect information, lacked application of mind, and were contrary to law and ultra vires CBDT instructions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind to the facts and pass appropriate orders in view of the position of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 6760/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 6760/2023 CM APPL. 26442/2023

ROOPA GOYAL

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr. Surya Jindal, Advs.

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 and 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 23.06.2021 which is illegal , unlawful , lacking jurisdiction and time barred; (violation of sec.153C and total lack of application of mind) 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 25.05.2022 being illegal , time barred, and lacking jurisdiction and wrongly converted to new law misinterpreting Hon’ble Apex court decision in Ashish Aggarwal case 444 ITR 1, and violation of sec. 153C and total lack of application of mind) 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 22.07.2022 being in violation of mandate of 1961 Act and Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6760/2023 Page 2 of 3

is totally contrary to law and time barred u/s 149(1) of 1961 Act and based on totally wrong and factually incorrect information as supplied u/s 148A(b) on 25.05.2022, totally bereft of any semblance of worthwhile reasoning ; violation of sec. 153C and total lack of application of mind) 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 dated 22.07.2022 being time barred , jurisdictionally flawed and based on unlawful and illegal order passed u/s 148A(d); 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 for AY 2014-2015, being based on ultra vires CBDT instructions & Notification. 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/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 according to him, in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 23.06.2021 and the subsequent notices dated 25.05.2022 and order dated 22.07.2022 and the notice dated 22.07.2022 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 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6760/2023 Page 3 of 3

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 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 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 →