Dismissed¶17

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-10 New Delhi v. Sh Bhushan Gupta

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026ITA/307/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; AY 2017-18; three-year time limit; prior approval; Section 151(ii); Section 151(i); PCCIT; TOLA Section 3(1); Section 148A(a), 148A(b), 148A(d); Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) paragraphs 78 & 81; Core Logistic Company [2025] 175 taxmann.com 453 (Madras); Ashish Agarwal; ITAT Delhi Bench 'E' order dated 31.07.2025; PR Commissioner of Income Tax-10 v. SH Bhushan Gupta; ITA 307/2026; Delhi High Court; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's reliance on a Madras High Court order does not mean that the question stands conclusively decided. ¶13

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-10 New Delhi Vs Sh Bhushan Gupta — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~111

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 307/2026, CM APPL. 23816/2026, CM APPL. 23817/2026 & CM APPL. 23818/2026

¶4

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 NEW DELHI

¶5

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain & Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs. versus SH BHUSHAN GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶6

O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶7

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “E”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) .

¶8

The issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having been issued after 3 years from the end of the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, without the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) i.e. the approving authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid in the eye of law.

¶9

The Tribunal while relying upon the order of Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 453 (Madras), has allowed the

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 23/04/2026 at 12:40:03

¶12

appeal filed by the respondent-asseessee (appellant therein).

¶13

Since the Tribunal has relied upon a Madras High Court order, it cannot be said that the question stands decided conclusively. This issue, however, has already been decided against the Income Tax Department by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph numbers 78 & 81 of the judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). Relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinfra:

¶14

“78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021.

¶15

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶16

81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.” Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.”

¶17

The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

¶18

Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶19

DINESH MEHTA, J.

¶20

VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶21

APRIL 13, 2026/ nk

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 23/04/2026 at 12:40:03

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-10 New Delhi v. Sh Bhushan Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-10 New Delhi v. Sh Bhushan Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Klj Resources Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 31, Delhi & Anr.

Klj Resources Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 31, Delhi & Anr.

Klj Resources Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 31, Delhi & Anr.

M/S Sry Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S Thiess Minecs India Pvt. Ltd.) Vs NTPC Ltd. & Anr.

Vishwaguru Education Academy LLP and Ors. Vs Lfx Technologies Private Limited

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 7 Vs R D Verma Co. Pvt. Ltd.