> v. Income Tax Officer Ward 44(6) New Delhi

$~24 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13069/2024, CM APPL. 54532/2024GAGAN PREET SINGH .....Petitioner Through:Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(6) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through:Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Mr. ViplavAcharya, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs andMr. Utkarsh Tiwar, Adv. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYALO R D E R26.08.2025 % 1.This petition has been filed with the following prayers: A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition orany other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s148 (and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024) byrespondent is in violation of section 151A and CBDTnotification dated 29.03.2022 B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition orany other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s148 (and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024) byrespondent is based on clear variation between SCN u/s148A(b) dated 15.08.2024 and final order u/s 148A(d)dated 31.08.2024 and impugned SCN is based on wrongand incorrect facts and reopening is merely based on“borrowed satisfaction” C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition orany other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 byrespondent being passed in arbitrary manner withoutapplicationofmindandisintotalviolationofjurisdictional conditions stipulated under provisions of1961 Act (specially sec 148 and sec 148A of the 1961D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition orany other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned reopening proceedings initiated vide notice u/s148; and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 byrespondent being made in violation of CBDT guidelines.E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition orany other writ and/or order and or directions quashing theimpugned proceedings u/s 148/148A made on basis ofinvalid “mechanical” sanction u/s 151 of 1961 Act of CCIT3 Delhi. F. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deemto be fit and more appropriate may please give order togrant interim relief to the petitioner by staying theoperation of impugned order passed u/s 148A(d)/notice u/s148 by respondent, which suffers from series of patent andmanifest jurisdictional errors as pointed above; 2.One of the ground of challenge is that the Assessing Officer at page58 as in paragraphs 7 of the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, stated asunder: “7. However, no reply has been received from the assesseeor its authorized representative till date leading to thebelief that the assessee has nothing to submit with regardto credible information received showing escapement ofincome for the assessment year under consideration aselaborated in the Show Cause Notice” 3.According to Mr. Goel, the conclusion drawn the AO in passing anorder under Section 148A(d) by stating that no reply has been filed by theassessee to the show cause notice under Section 148 A(b) is incorrect as theassessee has filed a reply on 26.08.2024 in physical form as well as online.Hence, to that extent, the finding of AO is perverse and as such impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024, so also the noticeissued under Section 148 also dated 31.08.2024 need to be set aside. 4.Mr. Agarwal do not dispute the conclusion drawn by AO in paragraph7 of the order dated 31.8.2024 at page 58. 5.If that be so, we set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 passed underSection 148A(d) so also the notice passed under Section 148 and remand thematter back to the AO by directing him to consider the reply filed by thepetitioner on 26.08.2024 and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6.The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 26, 2025 ss ANISH DAYAL, J