[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Akc Retailers Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer & Anr on 10 December, 2025
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 10.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 1606/2023 CM APPL. 6101/2023
AKC RETAILERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra
Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh,
JSC and Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(I) writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, quashing notice dated
27.05.2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟);
(II) writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing
of the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by
Respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Act, and
the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings
for AY 2013-14, and all proceedings/ actions
consequent thereto"
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice
under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.07.2022 which is
relatable to the assessment year 2013-14 has been passed beyond the period
of six years, which expired on 17.06.2022.
3. According to him, the issue in hand is covered by the judgment in the
case of Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 605. He has also placed before us a summary chart, which reads
as under:-
"A. Key Facts:
S. PARTICULARS DATE Relevant
No Pg./ Ann
No. of HC
appeal
1. Notice issued under section 24.06.2021 16
148 (old regime
2. Letter communicating 27.05.2022 55-57/ ' A '
information pursuant to SC
decision in Ashish Agarwal -
reply to be filed by
10.06.2022
3. Reply filed by Petitioner 09.06.2022 164-195/
'K'
4. Order u/s 148A (d) 22.07.2022 58-62/ 'B'
5. Notice issued u/s 148 - 22.07.2022 63-65/ 'C'
Sanction obtained from
PCCIT
B. COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF
UOI VS. RAJEEV BANSAL:
S.No. SC
Paras
1. Assessment Year 2013-2014
2. Period of limitation u/s 149 [3 6 years
years or 6 years]
3. Original Period of limitation u/s 31.03.2020
4. Extended period of limitation as 30.06.20211 Paras
per IT Act read with TOLA 65-69
5. Date of original notice u/s 148 - 24.06.2021
deemed SCN u/s 148A(b)
6. Time surviving from date of 6 days Paras
issuance of deemed SCN till 109-
TOLA [ from 24.06.2021]
7. Extended to 7 days as per proviso 7 days
to section 149
8. Period of deemed stay to be 24.06.2021 Paras
excluded as per 3rd proviso to To 105-
section 149 [ Date of Original 10.06.2022 107
148 till date allowed to file reply
to assessee[
9. Last date for issuing notice u/s 17.06.2022 Para
10. Actual date of issuance of notice 22.07.2022
u/s 148
11. Notice u/s 148 issued under new Para
6 years which expired on
17.06.2022.
4. Suffice to state that the issue at hand in the present petition needs to
be examined by the Assessing Officer keeping in view the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2693 as well as this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income
Tax Officer & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 481.
5. Additionally, we may reproduce paragraphs 27 to 29 of the judgment
in the case of Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra) as under:-
"27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ
petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate
the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act
bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders,
Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These
decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to
the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as
the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and
undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at
rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised
that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure
prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a
search.
28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to
examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each
individual noticee under Section 148 and which would
necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev
Bansal and Ram Balram.
29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a
reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact
of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned
reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in
paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus
render a finding on whether the impugned
reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be
recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to
assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed
pursuant to the above in accordance with law."
6. In the light of the paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra), as
decided by this Court on an identical issue, we dispose of the writ petition.
The pending application is disposed of as having become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
DECEMBER 10, 2025/sr
