Allowed¶23

Arun Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 29 (1), Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/2660/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court writ petition W.P.(C) 2660/2023, decided 23.07.2026: reassessment under Section 148/148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held time barred; surviving limitation computed per paras 107-108 of Rajeev Bansal ([2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)) as 5 days from reply to Section 148A(b) notice (original notice 25.06.2021; TOLA expiry 30.06.2021; order passed 26.07.2022 beyond 18.06.2022 deadline); order and notice quashed; writ allowed. Related: Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617; Delhi Sports and Entertainment (2026:DHC:2617-DB); TOLA 2020.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order under Section 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 quashed and set aside. ¶23

Arun Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 29 (1), Delhi and Ors. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order under Section 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 quashed and set aside.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings — the order under Section 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 — are time barred (and hence liable to be quashed) when the surviving limitation period is computed, per paras 107-108 of Rajeev Bansal, as the days between the original Section 148 notice (25.06.2021) and the expiry of the TOLA-extended limitation (30.06.2021).

¶10

Court's answer

The surviving period left with the assessing officer was 5 days from the date on which the reply to the Section 148A(b) notice was filed (reply filed 13.06.2022).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ought to have been passed latest by 18.06.2022, but was in fact passed on 26.07.2022.

¶21

Key takeaways

The order under Section 148A(d) dated 26.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 are clearly time barred and are quashed and set aside.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.) allowed W.P.(C) 2660/2023 (Arun Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), Delhi and Ors.). Applying paras 107-108 of Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), the Court held that where the original Section 148 notice was issued on 25.06.2021 and the limitation extended under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain) Act, 2020 expired on 30.06.2021, the assessing officer had a surviving period of only 5 days from the filing of the reply to the Section 148A(b) notice (filed 13.06.2022). The order under Section 148A(d), passed on 26.07.2022 instead of by the deadline of 18.06.2022, and the Section 148 notice dated 27.07.2022 were therefore time barred and were quashed and set aside. The respondents' Senior Standing Counsel did not dispute this position of facts and law.

¶1

$~58

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2660/2023 ARUN GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Aniket Khanduri, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29 (1), DELHI AND ORS.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Advs. Mr. Devrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R % 23.07.2026

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings including notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) as elucidated by this Court in the case of Delhi Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. reported in 2026:DHC:2617-DB .

¶11

Learned counsel submitted that the initial notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued on 25.06.2021, whereafter in pursuance of

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

¶14

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2023) 1 SCC 617 , a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 02.06.2022, to which two weeks’ time was given to the petitioner to file reply i.e. by 16.06.2022. The reply was filed by the assessee on 13.06.2022 and thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 came to be issued on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, respectively.

¶15

She argued that the remaining period, if calculated as per Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is apparent that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, respectively are clearly time barred as the surviving period has to be calculated in light of Para Nos. 107 and 108 of Rajeev Bansal (s upra ) , which lays down that the number of days between date of issuance of original Section 148 notice and expiry of extended limitation under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain) Act, 2020 will be the surviving period.

¶16

She informed that in the present case, the original Section 148 notice was issued on 25.06.2021 and the extended limitation under TOLA expired on 30.06.2021, and submitted that the surviving period will be of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed.

¶17

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, is not in a position to dispute this position of facts and law.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the factual and legal matrix, we are of the clear opinion that the surviving period left with the assessing officer was of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed (13.06.2026). Hence, the order under Section

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

¶21

148A(d) of the Act of 1961 ought to have been passed latest by 18.06.2022, which as a matter of fact came to be passed on 26.07.2022.

¶22

The order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 are, therefore, clearly time barred, thus the same are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶24

DINESH MEHTA, J.

¶25

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶26

JULY 23, 2026 / nk

¶27

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 30/07/2026 at 15:20:04

Arun Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 29 (1), Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 29 (1), Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Padmavathi College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shahid Baig Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

N.C. Nayyar Vs M/S. Greaves Cotton Ltd.

Kishan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Voltas Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs DDA & Anr.

Jyoti Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms Sarita Singh and Ors. Vs the Comissioner MCD and Ors.

Ritu Gulati Vs Union of India and Others

Travel Food Services Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

Bal Gopal Importers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-1, Delhi Vs Sanjay Gupta

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax - CENTRAL-1 Vs Jotindra Steels and Tubes Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs Spicejet Limited