[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dolf Leasing Ltd vs Acit Circle 7 1 Delhi And Ors on 1 December, 2025
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 01.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 18241/2025, CM APPL. 75414/2025
DOLF LEASING LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. Somnathanam, Mr. Rishabh
and Mr. Deepak, Advs.
versus
ACIT CIRCLE 7 1 DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC, Ms. Sanjeev
Menon, JSC and Mr. Rahul
Singh, JSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:-
"A) To issue writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
the illegal notice u/s. 148 dt. 30.7.2022 and
illegal order u/s. 148A(d) dt. 30.7.2022
(Annexures No. 5 & 6) and declare the same
as barred by limitation, without jurisdiction
and unauthorized by law.
B) To issue writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ to quash the illegal order of
reassessment dt. 27.05.2023 u/s 147 read
with 144B by NFAC and declare the same as
void ab initio and non-est in law and
consequently quash the illegal demands of
income-tax and interest raised thereunder by
the respondent.
C) To quash the illegal notice for
rectification dt. 14.11.2025 u/s. 154 and
declare the same as unsustainable and
unauthorized by law.
D) To quash the illegal notice for revision
u/s. 263 dt. 18.11.2025 as wholly without
jurisdiction and impermissible in law.
E) To stay the proceedings before the
respondents pursuant to the above notices
and orders which are impugned in this
petition.
F) To summon the records of lower
authorities.
G) To grant early out of turn hearing to the
petitioner.
H) To award costs."
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though
the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order has approached the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT (Appeals)"] but in view of
settled position of law by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev
Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner for reassessment being barred by limitation, the petitioner has
approached this Court vide this petition. He clarifies that as the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) was subsequent to the
assessment order and also after the filing of the appeal by the petitioner
before the CIT (Appeals), the petitioner did not approach this Court or urged
the point of limitation before the said Authorities.
3. He states that, on 31.01.2025, submissions have been filed by the
petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) after receipt of notice from the CIT
(Appeals) wherein, the petitioner herein had taken a specific plea by relying
upon the judgment in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (Supra), but the
issue has not been decided till date.
4. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the
respondents/Revenue do not contest the fact that the submissions have been
filed wherein the petitioner has taken a plea based on Rajeev Bansal
(supra).
5. If that be so, appropriate shall be that a direction is given by this
Court to CIT (Appeals) to consider the submissions made by the petitioner
on 31.01.2025 and decide the issue of limitation raised, as a preliminary
issue. Once a decision is taken by CIT (Appeals), the parties shall proceed in
accordance with law.
6. It is directed that the CIT (Appeals) shall decide the preliminary issue
based on the submissions filed, within eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
7. It is made clear till such time the issue of limitation is decided, no
proceedings shall be held on the two notices issued under Sections 154 and
263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
DECEMBER 01, 2025/sr
