RITA KUMARI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9112/2026HC DelhiDLHC01029162202607 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2026 falls in the financial year 2025-26, corresponding to AY 2026-27. Consequently, the ten-year period for issuing such a notice would extend only up to AY 2017-18. The Court found that the notice issued for AY 2015-16 was clearly beyond the permissible limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, even considering that the escaped income was more than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The reasoning was based on a plain reading of Section 149, calculating backwards from AY 2026-27. The Court quashed the notice dated 31.03.2026. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 for reassessment of income for a particular assessment year must be issued within the time limits stipulated by Section 149, which are calculated based on the financial year in which the notice is issued.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rita Kumari, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The reassessment proceedings stemmed from a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act conducted on 02.03.2022 at the premises of Gaursons Group and its associates. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, was unable to controvert the petitioner's factual submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of income for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Act? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The notice was issued on 31.03.2026, and the relevant assessment year for computing the outer ten-year period would be AY 2026-27. Therefore, the ten-year period would extend only up to AY 2017-18, making the notice for AY 2015-16 time-barred. Revenue's contention: The revenue was not in a position to controvert the factual matrix of the case presented by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 9112/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07th October, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010291622026 + W.P.(C) 9112/2026 CM APPL. 42747/2026 CM APPL. 42748/2026

RITA KUMARI

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Anushka Rawal, Ms. Ishkia, Mr. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC & Mr. Shamindra Kumar Dev, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) seeking to reassess the income of the petitioner for assessment year 2015-16. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the time period prescribed under Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2026 19:58:58 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9112/2026 Page 2 of 3 Section 149 of the Act of 1961. 3. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings arise from the search and seizure action conducted under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 on 02.03.2022 at the premises of Gaursons Group and its associates. Since the impugned notice has been issued on 31.03.2026, the relevant assessment year, for the purposes of computing the outer ten-year period, would be AY 2026-27. 4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department was not in a position to controvert to the factual matrix of the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It does not need much discussion that the impugned notice, dated 31.03.2026, falls in the financial year 2025-26 corresponding to assessment year 2026-27. The ten-year period would, therefore, extend only up to assessment year 2017-18. The impugned notice qua assessment year 2015- 16 is clearly beyond the permissible limitation period, the escaped income being more than Rs.50,00,000/-. If calculated backward from assessment year 2026-27, the position is as under: For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year 1 AY 2026-27 2 AY 2025-26 3 AY 2024-25 4 AY 2023-24 5 AY 2022-23 6 AY 2021-22 Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2026 19:58:58 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9112/2026 Page 3 of 3 7 AY 2020-21 8 AY 2019-20 9 AY 2018-19 10th year AY 2017-18

7.

The impugned notice for AY 2015-16 is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Section 149 of the Act of 1961. 8. The writ petition is allowed, the notice dated 31.03.2026 is quashed. Pending applications stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE

ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) OCTOBER 7, 2026/sid

Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:09.10.2026 19:58:58 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 →