DHURAV REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6808/2023HC DelhiDLHC01019429202330 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 writ petition. Following the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a chart, which had been filed in the Court, to the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was then directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner's representative and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receiving the chart. The Court did not decide the merits of the challenge to the impugned order and notice but remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhurav Real Estate Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 7(1), Delhi, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner also sought to quash Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to the extent it stated that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were not time-barred. The petition was filed seeking various writs, including certiorari and prohibition, to quash the impugned order, notice, and proceedings, and to restrain the respondents from acting upon them.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14, are liable to be set aside in view of the settled position of law and the factual matrix of the petition? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 148A and 148). Assessee's contention: 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, and High Court decisions in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., and Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others. Revenue's contention: The appropriate course of action would be to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the facts and pass appropriate orders, referencing the Supreme Court's procedure adopted in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. 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) 6808/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

+ W.P.(C) 6808/2023 CM APPL. 26569/2023

DHURAV REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Induraj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Tanishq Ahuja, 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) 2013-14 and has been filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ and / or order and or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 issued by Respondent no.1 u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto; b) Issue a writ and / or order and or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 issued by Respondent no. 1 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto; Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6808/2023 Page 2 of 3

c) Issue a writ and/or order and/or directions to restrain the respondents from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and/or in any proceedings initiated thereunder for the Assessment Year 2013-14; d) Issue a writ of and/or order and or directions in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for amending, deleting, quashing, the Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (ie. Respondent no.2), to the extent that it stated that the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14 is not time barred. e) Grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c ) & (d) above; f) Pass such other and/or further interim Order(s) or Order(s) as his Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to give complete relief to the petitioner.. ”

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 in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022(u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961), and the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022(u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) 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 the 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 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 6808/2023 Page 3 of 3

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 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 in the Court today, 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 representative of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders 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 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →