MANISH GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-34(1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6779/2023HC DelhiDLHC01019357202330 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 rejoinder, before the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. This approach was adopted in view of the submission by the Revenue and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Reliance Industries Limited, where a similar procedure was directed. The court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order and notice but remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated July 20, 2022. These actions pertain to Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner sought to quash these impugned orders and notices. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34(1), Delhi, suggested that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the facts and pass appropriate orders in light of the prevailing legal position. The High Court noted a similar procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in a related matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated July 20, 2022, and the notice under Section 148 dated July 20, 2022, are liable to be quashed/set aside in light of the settled position of law and the facts emerging in the petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and notice are liable to be set aside, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, a Delhi High Court judgment in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., and a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the appropriate course of action would be to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind to the facts and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Revenue referred to the Supreme Court's order in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Reliance Industries Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 6779/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 6779/2023 CM APPL. 26487/2023

MANISH GUPTA

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr.Vidhan Jain, Advocate

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-34(1) DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC, Ms. Easha, JSC.

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 filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ/Directions against the Respondent & kindly Quash/Set Aside impugned order u/s 148A(d) dated 20.07.2022 & notice u/s 148 dated 20.07.2022 of the IT Act; B. Cost of present proceedings, may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent; and”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in view of the settled Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6779/2023 Page 2 of 3

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 in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 20.07.2022 and order dated 20.07.2022 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 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. Infact, our attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs 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 rejoinder, 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. Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6779/2023 Page 3 of 3

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 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →