Meenu Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3)
Case brief
What is this about?
Meenu Goyal v. ITO Ward 58(3), W.P.(C) 3574/2023, High Court of Delhi, decided 03.03.2025 (Yashwant Varma & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.). Reassessment for AY 2014-15; initial notice u/s 148 dated 13.04.2021 (old law); Section 148A(b) notice dated 17.05.2022; Section 148 notice (new law) and Section 148A(d) order dated 26.07.2022; no reply at 148A(c) stage. Issue of surviving period/time-barred reassessment referred to Jurisdictional AO to examine bearing in mind Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693) and Ram Balram Buildhome (2025 SCC OnLine Del 481); disposal on terms of Kanwaljeet Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine Del 605 / 2025:DHC:656-DB, paras 27-29) referencing T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, Naveen Kumar Gupta; Sections 148, 151, 153C; writ disposed with directions to AO; liberty to assail adverse orders.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition disposed of on terms identical to paragraphs 27-29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur: the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the surviving-period/time-bar question bearing in mind Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram Buildhome, evaluate the Section 148 SCN in light of T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta, and pass a reasoned and speaking order on whether the impugned reassessment notices survive or are liable to be recalled, with liberty to the petitioner to assail any adverse order in accordance with law.