Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) New Delhi v. Singh, Jsc Andms. Ravicha Sharma, Adv.khan, Jsc, Mr. V. Singh, Jsc Andms. Ravicha Sharma, Adv

$~79 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 +W.P.(C) 4154/2023 MAHENDRA KUMAR JHANWARThrough:Mr. Kapil Goel, Adv.versus .....Petitioner INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(1) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through:Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. ZehraKhan, JSC, Mr. V. Singh, JSC andMs. Ravicha Sharma, Adv.Khan, JSC, Mr. V. Singh, JSC andMs. Ravicha Sharma, Adv. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMARV. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) 1.This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned initial notice u/s 148 dated 17.06.2021 and impugnedsubsequent notice(s) dated 28.05.2022 which is illegal ,unlawful , lacking jurisdiction and time barred;other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned initial notice u/s 148 dated 17.06.2021 and impugnedsubsequent notice(s) dated 28.05.2022 which is illegal ,unlawful , lacking jurisdiction and time barred; B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned subsequent notice(s) dated 28.05.2022 which iscontrary to expl. 1 to sec. 148 of 1961 Act without providingcomplete /relevant relied upon material;other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned subsequent notice(s) dated 28.05.2022 which iscontrary to expl. 1 to sec. 148 of 1961 Act without providingcomplete /relevant relied upon material; C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022 being inviolation of mandate of 1961 Act and travelling beyond thescope of cryptic information as supplied u/s 148A(b) on28.05.2022 and against “consistency” principle ;other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022 being inviolation of mandate of 1961 Act and travelling beyond thescope of cryptic information as supplied u/s 148A(b) on28.05.2022 and against “consistency” principle ; D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 being time barred ,jurisdictionally flawed and based on unlawful and illegal orderpassed u/s 148A(d) which is totally based on new and fresh setof allegations never confronted to petitioner; E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned proceedings u/s 148/148A for AY 2013-2014, beingbased on ultra vires CBDT instruction dated 01/2022 dated11.05.2022 and contrary stand of CBDT in its instruction no.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 (para 6.1 & para 6.2) may please bedeclared ultra vires to sec. 149(1) first proviso;Humble Prayerfor reference to Larger bench jurisdiction (public importanceissue) Time barring Issue of limitation u/s 149(1)(b) firstproviso:in light of decision of Touchstone case may please bereferred to larger bench in light of Hon’ble Gujarat andAllahabad high court recent decisions (supra) as per wellacknowledged principle of uniform interpretation on centrallegislation as same (touchstone) is per incuriamand renderedsub silentiowith all due respect ; F. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or anyother writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned proceedings u/s 148/148A in violation of sec.151A/CBDTNotification dated 29.03.2022; G. Issue a writ inthe nature of mandamus or an order prohibiting the operationof the impugned proceedings u/s 148, as deemed fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the present case as initiatedby the respondent u/s 148/148A of the 1961 Act; H. Pass anyother order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit andmore appropriate may please give order to grant interim reliefto the petitioner by staying the operation of impugned orderpassed by respondent u/s 148A(d)/consequential notice u/s 148,which suffers from series of jurisdictional errors as pointedabove;” 2.The submission of Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioneris that this petition relates to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) was issued on17.06.2021 and subsequent notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on28.05.2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was passed under theamended law on 28.07.2022. Similarly, the notice under Section 148 of theamended law was issued on 28.07.2022. According to him, the entireproceedings are time barred under the first proviso to Section 149(1) beingcontrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court laid down in Union of Indiav. Ashish Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543. He also draw supportfrom the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629/2024 and Ram BalramBuildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, 2025: DHC: 547-DB. He alsorefers to a similar judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal v.ACIT, W.P.(C) 5122/2023 dated 30.07.2025 and also the judgment of theSupreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. RelianceIndustries Limited, SLP(C) Diary No. 56889/2024 decided on 24.02.2025.3.Mr Goel has also placed a chart of relevant dates to show that thematter is covered by the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.(supra).The details of the chart are reproduced as under: “ (PARA 112); Also reliance is placed on this hon;ble Court decision incase ofRam Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer andAnr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB applied inAGARWALORNAMENTS PVT LTD vs ITO W.P.(C) 17566/2022 21.03.2025;DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs ACITW.P.(C) 3654/2023 28.03.2025; IRA MALHOTRA vs ACIT W.P.(C)391/2302318.03.2025;PRATISHTHAGARGvsACITW.P.(C)16681/2024 25.03.2025Same matters disposed off in case of Rajesh Agarwal vsACIT W.P.(C)5122/2023 Date 30.07.2025 (Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of“Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited”SLP(C) Diary No. 56889/2024 decided on 24.02.2025)Also refer Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case ofSandeepSinghSalujav.IncomeTaxDepartmentandOthers2025:MPHC-IND:19495 ” 4.On the other hand, Mr. Debesh Panda, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent/Revenue by referring to the judgment of this Court inKawaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (34) 1Delhi & Ors.,W.P.(C) 3908/2023 and connected petitions wherein it washeld as under, would urge that the matter be remanded back to the AO todecide the surviving period by passing a reasoned order: ” 4.On the other hand, Mr. Debesh Panda, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent/Revenue by referring to the judgment of this Court inKawaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (34) 1Delhi & Ors.,W.P.(C) 3908/2023 and connected petitions wherein it washeld as under, would urge that the matter be remanded back to the AO todecide the surviving period by passing a reasoned order: “26. Having identified the broad principles which would nowgovern the question of surviving time, we are of the consideredopinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuanexercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to beexpedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame anorder with respect to the individual reassessment notices inlight of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansaland of this Court in Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, AbhinavJindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta.govern the question of surviving time, we are of the consideredopinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuanexercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to beexpedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame anorder with respect to the individual reassessment notices inlight of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansaland of this Court in Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, AbhinavJindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. 27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions bydirecting the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs‘under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments inT.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta.These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining tothe accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as theauthority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertakereassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challengedirecting the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs‘under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments inT.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta.These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining tothe accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as theauthority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertakereassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound toadhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in casesemanating from a search. 28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examinethe issue of surviving period in respect of each individualnoticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily beguided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram.29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned andspeaking order dealing with the impact of the judgmentsreferred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices andin the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. Thatdecision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugnedreassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled.It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverseorders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above inaccordance with law.” 5.Mr. Goel is agreeable to the submissions made by Mr. Panda. 6.Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the AO to decide theissue of surviving period by taking into consideration the aforesaidjudgments and decide the same by granting an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner or its representative and pass a detailed and speaking order. 7.The above exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks from thedate of receipt of the order as an outer limit. 8.In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2025 rk