Anmol Tradex Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 25 Delhi
High Court
09 Sep 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Anmol Tradex Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 25 Delhi
Date of order
09 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Anmol Tradex Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 25 Delhi, the High Court (2025) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 9.The petition and accompanying application seeking interim stay stand Signature Not Verified disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~13*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
+W.P.(C) 13089/2025 & CM APPL. 53626/2025
ANMOL TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL)
CM APPL. 53627/2025(exemption)
1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13089/2025 & CM APPL. 53626/2025(stay)3.The petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any otherappropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting asidethe two show-cause notices dated 31.03.2025 and 25.06.2025
issued by the Respondent under Section 148A(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the consequent Order dated 28.06.2025 underSection 148A(3) of the Act, and the notice dated 28.06.2025under Section 148 of the Act.”
4.One of the submissions by Dr Manas, learned counsel for thepetitioner is that while passing the order under Section 148A(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the respondents have not taken intoconsideration the reply filed by the petitioner on 28.06.2025 pursuant to thenotice dated 25.06.2025.
5.According to him, the respondents have passed the order on28.06.2025 itself.
6.In fact, we note that on a perusal of the order passed under Section148A(3) of the Act dated 28.06.2025 more specifically paragraph 5 at pages67 & 68, though it refers to the replies of the petitioner dated 15.04.2025 and24.06.2025 but not of 28.06.2025, which means the reply dated 28.06.2025was not considered.
7.Noting the infirmity in the order dated 28.06.2025 passed underSection 148A(3) of the Act, we set aside the said order and also the noticedated 28.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act and remand the matter backto the Assessing Officer (AO), who shallpass a fresh order afterconsidering all the replies filed by the petitioner dated 15.04.2025,24.06.2025 and 28.06.2025. This fresh order shall be a reasoned andspeaking order, and shall be passed within six weeks from today.
8.Once the AO has passed the fresh order, under Section 148A(3) of theAct, the parties to proceed in accordance with law.
9.The petition and accompanying application seeking interim stay stand
Signature Not Verified
disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025RT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
VINOD KUMAR, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.