KARAM SINGH vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 10 DELHI

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147, Section 148, Section 151

W.P.(C)/5096/2022HC DelhiDLHC01012098202228 March 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA15 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, are ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and consequently, are bad in law and null and void. The Court reiterated its conclusion from the case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. It found that the Legislature introduced new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2021, and Section 147 was not mentioned in the impugned Explanations. Therefore, reassessment notices issued under Section 148 after March 31, 2021, had to comply with the substituted Sections. The Court clarified that while the power of reassessment existed prior to March 31, 2021, and continued till June 30, 2021, the Finance Act, 2021, changed the procedure to be followed before issuing a notice from April 1, 2021. The Relaxation Act only empowers the Government to extend time limits, not to legislate on procedural provisions for initiating reassessment proceedings. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja but agreed with the Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts in Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Bpip Infra Private Limited, respectively. The revenue's reliance on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was deemed untenable as the repeal was followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject, manifesting an intention to destroy the old procedure. The Court quashed the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the writ petitions. The respondents were granted liberty to take further steps if the law permitted, and the petitioners were free to pursue their remedies.

What were the facts?

The judgment concerns multiple writ petitions filed by various assessees (Dream Merchant Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Rajinder Sobti, Late Ashok Aggarwal, M/s. Unique Infoways P Ltd, Karmarth Infrastructure Private Limited, Mehak Nayer, MPG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Monesh Israni, Flame Promoters Private Limited, Delhivery Limited, Global Emerging Markets India Limited, Jaspal Singh, Monesh Israni, Manoj Kumar Jain, La Plastpacks Pvt. Ltd., Indo Gulf Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Devapriya Majumdar, Bird Travels Private Limited, and Preeti Agarwal) against the Income Tax Department. The core issue in all these petitions revolves around reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contend that these notices were issued after March 31, 2021, without adhering to the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. The Department, on the other hand, relies on certain Explanations in notifications issued under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, are valid if they do not comply with the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2021? Assessee's Contention: The assessees argue that since the impugned notices were issued after April 1, 2021, they must strictly follow the newly substituted Sections 147 to 151. They contend that the Explanations in the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which purportedly allow for the continuation of the old procedure, are ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and the parent statute, as they attempt to legislate beyond the delegated power of extending time limits. They rely on the High Court's own judgment in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contends that the power of reassessment existed prior to March 31, 2021, and continued till June 30, 2021. They argue that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post March 31, 2021, and that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to past Assessment Years as it is substantial in nature. They also argue that the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated the extensions and that certain provisions like the non-obstante clause in the Relaxation Act, legal fiction, and stop-the-clock provisions are applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 5019/2022

W.P.(C) 5025/2022

W.P.(C) 5040/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~33, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52 to 54, 56 to 66, 70 to 78, 80, 81, 84, 86, 89 & 90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 33 + W.P.(C) 5019/2022 & CM APPL.14956/2022, CM APPL.14957/2022

DREAM MERCHANT REALTORS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gautam Jain with Mr. Piyush

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zehra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel with Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocate. 39 + W.P.(C) 5025/2022

RAJINDER SOBTI

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Rishi Jaiswal with Mr. Divyansh

Jain and Ms. Tanya Minocha,

Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-

49(1),DELHI

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 46 + W.P.(C) 5040/2022 & CM APPL.14991/2022

LATE ASHOK AGGARWAL THR. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ajay Wadhwa with Mr. Sanchil

Jha, Advocates. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1) NEW DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zehra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel with Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocate.

47 + W.P.(C) 5043/2022 & CM APPL.14993/2022, CM APPL.14994/2022

M/S. UNIQUE INFOWAYS P LTD

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. S. Krishnah, Advocate.

versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -

25 (1), DELHI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate. 49 + W.P.(C) 5051/2022 & CM APPL.15011/2022, CM APPL.15012/2022

KARMATH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ... Petitioner

Through Mr. Upvan Gupta, Advocate.

versus

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1) DELHI .... Respondent

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 50 + W.P.(C) 5056/2022 & CM APPL.15021/2022, CM APPL.15022/2022

MEHAK NAYER

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Abhishek Kaushik with

Mr. Vishwa B. Gupta and

Ms. Bhawna Piplani, Advocates.

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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

versus

ACIT, CIRCLE 70(1) & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate. 52 + W.P.(C) 5059/2022 & CM APPL.15026/2022, CM APPL.15027/2022

MPG BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gautam Jain with Mr. Piyush

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 53 + W.P.(C) 5061/2022 & CM APPL.15032/2022, CM APPL.15033/2022

MONESH ISRANI

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana

Panda, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1), & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 54 + W.P.(C) 5062/2022 & CM APPL.15040/2022

FLAME PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Piyush Goel, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Gaurav Sharma with Mr. Naveen

Chawdhary, Advocates for UOI. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

56 + W.P.(C) 5065/2022 & CM APPL.15048/2022, CM APPL.15049/2022

DELHIVERY LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Prakash Kumar with Ms. Rashmi

Singh, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

CIRCLE 18, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Senwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel.

Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal with Mr. Dhawal

Uniyal, Advocates for respondent

No.3.

57 + W.P.(C) 5066/2022 & CM APPL.15050/2022

GLOBAL EMERGING MARKETS INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ram Avtar Bansal, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.

58 + W.P.(C) 5067/2022 & CM APPL.15052/2022, CM APPL.15053/2022

JASPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(6) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate. 59 + W.P.(C) 5069/2022 & CM APPL.15056/2022, CM APPL.15057/2022

MONESH ISRANI

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana

Panda, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1), & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.

60 + W.P.(C) 5070/2022 & CM APPL.15059/2022, CM APPL.15060/2022

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Shailesh Gupta with Mr. Shyam

Sundar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 71(1) NEW DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate. 62 + W.P.(C) 5075/2022 & CM APPL.15070/2022

LA PLASTPACKS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ajay Wadhwa with Mr. Sanchil

Jha, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.

63 + W.P.(C) 5076/2022 & CM APPL.15072/2022, CM APPL.15073/2022

INDO GULF DIAGNOSTIC & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE

LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Kanika Sinha with Ms. Maiteryi

Joshi, Advocates.

versus

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate. 64 + W.P.(C) 5079/2022 & CM APPL.15081/2022, CM APPL.15082/2022

DEVAPRIYA MAJUMDAR

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Nitin Gultai, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-61(1),DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zehra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel with Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocate. 65 + W.P.(C) 5080/2022 & CM APPL.15090/2022

BIRD TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Pulkit

Verma, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)

DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zehra Khan, Jr. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

Standing Counsel with Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocate.

66 + W.P.(C) 5081/2022 & CM APPL.15092/2022

PREETI AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ajay Wadhwa with Mr. Sanchil

Jha, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28(1)

& ANR.

..... Respondent

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. 70 + W.P.(C) 5086/2022 & CM APPL.15109/2022

MANOJ KUMAR SAMDARIA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr. Gagan

Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ACIT CIRCLE 52-1 NEW DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Senwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel. 71 + W.P.(C) 5087/2022 & CM APPL.15112/2022

LALJI MAL OMKAR MAL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Goel, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

72 + W.P.(C) 5088/2022 & CM APPL.15113/2022

MADHUR KABRA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ajay Wadhwa with Mr. Sanchil

Jha, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 70(1)

& ANR.

..... Respondent

Through Advocate (appearance not given) 73 + W.P.(C) 5089/2022 & CM APPL.15116/2022, CM APPL.15117/2022

KLG SECURITIES LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gautam Jain with Mr. Piyush

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 74 + W.P.(C) 5091/2022 & CM APPL.15121/2022, CM APPL.15122/2022

REHANA BABY

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Mudit Bansal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 63 -1 DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Senwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

75 + W.P.(C) 5092/2022 & CM APPL.15125/2022

MERU MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Geeta Rani, Advocate.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. 76 + W.P.(C) 5093/2022 & CM APPL.15126/2022, CM APPL.15127/2022

P.N CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gautam Jain with Mr. Piyush

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate.

77 + W.P.(C) 5094/2022 & CM APPL.15129/2022, CM APPL.15130/2022

SANA REALTORS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gautam Jain with Mr. Piyush

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2)

DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate.

78 + W.P.(C) 5096/2022 & CM APPL.15136/2022, CM APPL.15137/2022

KARAM SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Mudit Bansal, Advocate.

versus

THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 10 DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 80 + W.P.(C) 5098/2022 & CM APPL.15141/2022, CM APPL.15142/2022

NITU JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Shailesh Gupta with Mr. Shyam

Sundar, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 58(3) NEW DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.

81 + W.P.(C) 5099/2022 & CM APPL.15143/2022, CM APPL.15144/2022

PRIYANKA NAHATA,

..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Kanika Sinha with Ms. Maiteryi

Joshi, Advocates.

versus

ITO WARD 30 (1)DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

84 + W.P.(C) 5104/2022 & CM APPL.15153/2022, CM APPL.15154/2022

RAPID BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Upvan Gupta, Advocate.

versus

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 21 (1), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Shailesh Gupta with Mr. Shyam

Sundar, Advocates. 86 + W.P.(C) 5109/2022 & CM APPL.15162/2022, CM APPL.15163/2022

MONESH ISRANI

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana

Panda, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1), & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 89 + W.P.(C) 5114/2022 & CM APPL.15170/2022, CM APPL.15171/2022

M/S. FAITH BUILDTECH (P) LTD

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. S. Krishnah, Advocate.

versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.

90 + W.P.(C) 5117/2022 & CM APPL.15175/2022, CM APPL.15176/2022

KIRAN JINDAL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Nitin Gultai, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1),DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

28.03.2022 O R D E R

Learned counsel for the parties admit that as the impugned notices in the present matters have been issued post 31st March, 2021 without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 01st April, 2021, the present matters are covered by the judgment dated 15th 2. The conclusion reached by this Court in Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- December, 2021 passed by this Court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6176/2021. “CONCLUSION

97.

This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is not even mentioned in the impugned Explanations, the reassessment notices relating to any Assessment Year issued 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

under Section 148 after 31st

March, 2021 had to comply with the substituted Sections. 98. It is clarified that the power of reassessment that existed prior to 31st March, 2021 continued to exist till the extended period i.e. till 30th June, 2021; however, the Finance Act, 2021 has merely changed the procedure to be followed prior to issuance of notice with effect from 1st

April, 2021. 99. This Court is of the opinion that Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act empowers the Government/Executive to extend only the time limits and it does not delegate the power to legislate on provisions to be followed for initiation of reassessment proceedings. In fact, the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th

April, 2021 are not conditional legislation and are beyond the power delegated to the Government as well as ultra vires the parent statute i.e. the Relaxation Act. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully not in agreement with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), but with the views of the Allahabad High Court and Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Bpip Infra Private Limited (supra) respectively. 100. The submission of the Revenue that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post 31st

March, 2021 is untenable in law, as in the present case, the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject and the new Act manifests an intention to destroy the old procedure. Consequently, if the Legislature has permitted reassessment to be made in a particular manner, it can only be in this manner, or not at all. 101. The argument of the respondents that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable to past 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

Assessment Years, as it is substantial in nature is contradicted by Respondents’ own Circular 549 of 1989 and its own submission that from 1st

July, 2021, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable. 102. Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 for contending that the new provisions Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not operate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30th

June, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19 Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also, the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, ‘legal fiction’ and ‘stop the clock provision’ are contrary to facts and untenable in law. 103. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use the administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also of the opinion that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present instance, by emptying it of content or impeding or postponing their effectual operation.”

Keeping in view the aforesaid, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th 4. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are quashed and the present writ petitions are allowed. If the law permits the respondents/revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioners have a grievance, they shall be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law.

MANMOHAN, J

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MARCH 28, 2022 st 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 01/07/2026 at 14:03:46

More judgments on Section 147

Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi
ITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, Sakti
ITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Raipur
ITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot
ITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →