GAURAV HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7053/2024HC DelhiDLHC01028715202423 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was beyond the period of limitation. This finding was based on the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) on instructions. The Revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued after the prescribed period of limitation, considering the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on March 22, 2024, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 12, 2024, indicating a delay. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2024. The judgment explicitly stated that this order would not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of on this basis.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaurav HUF, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 12, 2024, and an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated February 12, 2024. The primary ground for challenge was that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(1), Delhi. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and order, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Section 149(1)(a) of the Act? Assessee's contention: The notice is beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the notice issued was beyond the period of limitation, based on instructions from the concerned officer. The order under Section 148A(d) was passed on March 22, 2024, and the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 12, 2024, resulting in a delay of 1.5 days. The revenue did not contest the petitioner's submission on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7053/2024 & CM APPL. 29425/2024(Stay)

GAURAV HUF

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr Paritosh Jain with Mr Divyansh Jain and Mr Abhishek Jain, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(1) DELHI .....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 SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R %

23.07.2025

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A. Issue writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ/directions against the respondent & kindly quash/set aside Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 12.04.2024 issued by the Respondent. B. Cost of present proceeding may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner;”

2.

In substance, the challenge in the petition is to the notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and to the order dated 12.02.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. One of the grounds of challenge is that the notice is beyond the period of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2025 at 12:37:54

limitation in terms of Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not contested by the counsel for the respondent (on instructions) in as much as the order was passed by the concerned officer on 22.03.2024 and notice was issued on 12.04.2024 which resulted in a delay of 1/2 days. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions fairly state that the notice issued was beyond the period of limitation. 4. If that be so, the notice dated 12.04.2024 is set aside. This order shall not preclude the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. 5. The petition is disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 23, 2025/tg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2025 at 12:37:54

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →