MAHAVIR FINCON PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14185/2024HC DelhiDLHC01068876202408 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that its previous view on the issue of limitation was correct in law, as the Revenue could not cite any contrary law. Following its earlier reasoning from the order dated October 8, 2024, the Court allowed the writ petition. The order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 30, 2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued beyond the prescribed period and the Revenue cannot demonstrate otherwise, such a notice is liable to be quashed, and the High Court's prior decision on the point remains binding unless contradicted by a superior authority or a change in law. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and the order under Section 148A(d).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahavir Fincon Private Limited, challenged a notice dated August 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed period. The Delhi High Court, in a previous order dated October 8, 2024, had allowed the writ petition and set aside the notice, relying on its decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer. The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against this order. The Supreme Court, vide its order dated July 16, 2026, remanded the matter back to the High Court to consider if the proceedings were time-barred, referencing its earlier orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is barred by limitation. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice has been issued beyond the prescribed period. The assessee relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. Revenue's contention: No specific contention is recorded in the judgment regarding the revenue's arguments on limitation, other than the fact that they preferred an SLP against the High Court's initial order and the Supreme Court remanded the matter for consideration of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010688762024 + W.P.(C) 14185/2024

MAHAVIR FINCON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through:

versus

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

28.09.2026 1. On 08.10.2024, a Division Bench of this Court had allowed present writ petition, while observing thus:- “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

It is the petitioner's case that impugned notice has been issued beyond the prescribed period. The said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

3.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside.

4.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending 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 30/09/2026 at 13:03:56

applications also stand disposed of.”

2.

The respondent-Income Tax Department preferred an SLP against the above order which came to be disposed of by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.07.2026, while relying upon the orders dated 10.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.4716/2026 and Civil Appeal no.6922/2026 respectively and the matter has been remanded to consider if the proceedings are time barred. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the issue on limitation, we are of the view that the above view taken by this Court on the issue of limitation is correct in the eye of law, as no contrary law could be cited by the Revenue. 4. Following the reasoning given by this Court in its above quoted order dated 08.10.2024, the present writ petition is allowed. 5. The order passed under Section 148A(d) so also the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/sid

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 30/09/2026 at 13:03:56

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →