Writ petition against reassessment proceedings: the Division Bench held that computing the surviving limitation period per Rajeev Bansal, only five days remained after the reply to the 148A(b) notice, so the 148A(d) order and 148 notice passed well beyond that were time barred and were quashed; writ allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~59
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), DELHI ANR ORS.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
O R D E R % 23.07.2026
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 15:19:57
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 27.05.2022 to which two weeks’ time was given to the petitioner to file reply i.e. by 13.06.2022. 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 28.07.2022.
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 15:19:57
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
JULY 23, 2026 / nk
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 15:19:57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice issued on 28.07.2022 were time barred under Rajeev Bansal surviving-period computation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union Of India v. Rajeev BansalFollowed¶6
[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)
Delhi Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.Relied on¶1
2026:DHC:2617-DB
Union of India v. Ashish AgarwalReferred¶2
(2023) 1 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Gupta
Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), Delhi
Dinesh Mehta
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
