MANCHANDA HERBAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF FINANCE & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7372/2026HC DelhiDLHC01023800202608 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not without jurisdiction. The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had a reasonable basis to proceed against the petitioner, as evidenced by the notice and the reasons enclosed therewith. The arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel, while they might affect the quantum of any addition made, were not sufficient to deem the notice as being issued without jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the notice at this stage. The petitioner was directed to file a reply and present their submissions and defense, including any contentions in light of proviso I to Section 56(x) of the Act, before the AO, who would consider them objectively. The petition was dismissed without any observations on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manchanda Herbal Products Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order and a notice dated June 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was without jurisdiction. The respondents, Union of India and the Income Tax Department, were represented by their respective counsel. The High Court reviewed the notice and the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court found that the AO had a reasonable basis to proceed against the petitioner and that the arguments presented by the petitioner, while potentially relevant to the quantum of addition, did not render the notice without jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, warranting interference by the High Court in a writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction. The specific grounds for this contention are not detailed in the judgment, but the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the notice itself. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, implicitly argued that the notice was valid and issued with a reasonable basis, as supported by the reasons provided by the AO. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond this implicit defense of the AO's action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 56(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7372/2026, CM APPL. 35902/2026 & CM APPL. 35903/2026 MANCHANDA HERBAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaushik and Mr. Ram Naresh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF FINANCE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Panwar, SPC with Ms. Rakshita Goyal, Mr. Nikhil Goel and Mr. Sahej Sawhney, Advocates for R- 1/UOI. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput, Advocate for R-2/Income Tax Dept. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2025 and the corresponding notice of even date passed/issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’). 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, we do not find the notice under challenge to be without jurisdiction. Further, a perusal of the notice and reasons enclosed therewith 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 10/07/2026 at 11:49:11

shows that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has a reasonable basis to proceed against the petitioner. The arguments which learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced before us, may or may not have a bearing on the quantum of addition (if made), but by this reason itself, the notice issued by the AO cannot be alleged to be without jurisdiction so as to warrant interference by us. 3. The petitioner may file a reply and canvass his submissions and defence including contention in light of proviso I to Section 56(x) of the Act before the AO, which shall be objectively considered by the AO. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed without making any observations on merits. All the pending applications stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 8, 2026/MR 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 10/07/2026 at 11:49:11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →