Delhi High Court
Filatex India Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 29.10.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4475/2023 CM APPL. 17153/2023
FILATEX INDIA LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr Rohit Jain, Mr Samarth
Chaudhari, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra
Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh,
JSCs, Ms. Nivedita, Ms. A. Shankar,
Ms. Ravicha Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"(I) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing:
(a) the notice dated 08.06.2021 issued under the erstwhile
section 148 and now deemed to be notice under section
148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act');
(b) the letter/ notice dated 24.05.2022 communicating the
so called information/ material forming the basis of
proceedings under section 148/148A of the Act;
(c) the order dated 30.07.2022 passed [with the prior
approval of Respondent No.3] under section 148A(d), and
the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings vide
notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the
Act;
in the case of the Petitioner for assessment year 2014-15,
and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto;
(II) Issue a writ/ direction declaring Instruction No.1 dated
11.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 as ultra vires, to the
extent that the same is contrary to the provisions of section 147-
149 and 151 of the Act and in gross and blatant violation of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ashish Agarwal (supra);
(III) Issue a writ/ direction declaring that the provisions of
sections 147/ 148 permitting reopening of assessment simply on
the basis of "information" as defined in Explanation 1 to section
148 of the Act, to be highly arbitrary, i1rational and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution as well as the substantive
provisions of the Act;
(IV) stay the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections
147/148 vide the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued
under section 148 of the Act, and/or any other proceedings
initiated thereunder for the assessment year 2014-15, during
pendency of the present petition;
(V) grant ad-interim ex-parte stay in terms of prayer (IV)
above;
(VI) call for the records of the case from the Respondents;"
2. The case pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice issued under Section 148 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) shall be beyond the permissible time.
3. He has placed before us a limitation chart as per the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2693, which reads as under:-
SUMMARYCHART
A. Key Facts:
S. No PARTICULARS DATE Relevant Pg./
Ann
No.
1. Notice issued under section 148 (old regime) 08.06.2021 81/'A'
2. Letter communicating information pursuant to 24.05.2022 82/'B'
SC decision in Ashish Agarwal - reply to be filed
by 07.06.2022
3. Reply filed by Petitioner 06.06.2022 231/ 'I'
4. Order u/s 148A(d) 30.07.2022 93/ 'C'
5. Notice issued u/s 148 - Sanction obtained from 30.07.2022 101/ 'D'
CCIT
B. COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF UOI VS. RAJEEV
BANSAL[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC):
S. SC Paras
No.
1. Assessment Year 2014-15
2. Period of limitation u/s 149 [3 years or 6 years] 6 years
3. Original Period of limitation u/s 149 31.03.2021
4. Extended period of limitation as per IT Act read 30.06.2021 Paras 65-69
with TOLA
5. Date of original notice u/s 148 - deemed SCN u/s 08.06.2021
148A(b)
6. Time surviving from date of issuance of deemed 22 days Paras 109-113
SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA > 7 days
[from 08.06.2021 till 30.06.2021]
7. Period of deemed stay to be excluded 08.06.2021 Paras 105-107
[Date of Original 148 till date on which reply filed to
by assessee] 06.06.2022
rd
8. Period to be excluded as per 3 proviso to section N/A
9. Last date for issuing notice u/s 148:
[i.e., 06.06.2022 + 22 days] 28.06.2022
OR, OR
[i.e., 07.06.2022 + 22 days] 29.06.2022
10. Actual date of issuance of notice u/s 148 30.07.2022
11. Sanction obtained from CCIT on 30.07.2022
Hence, Notice u/s 148 issued under new regime is barred by limitation.
4. Mr Debesh Panda, learned SSC appearing for the Revenue does not
seriously dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before us a
judgment rendered by this Court in Mahendra Kumar Jhanwar v. Income
Tax Officer Ward 36(1) New Delhi,2025:DHC:7874-DB which relates to
the AY 2013-14, wherein we have in paragraphs no.4 to 8 has held as
under:-
"4. On the other hand, Mr. Debesh Panda, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/Revenue by referring to the judgment of
this Court in Kawaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors.,W.P.(C) 3908/2023 and connected
petitions wherein it was held as under, would urge that the matter be
remanded back to the AO to decide the surviving period by passing a
reasoned order:
"26. Having identified the broad principles which would now
govern the question of surviving time, we are of the considered
opinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuan
exercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to be
expedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame an
order with respect to the individual reassessment notices in light
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and of
this Court in Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, Abhinav Jindal and
Naveen Kumar Gupta.
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."
5. Mr. Goel is agreeable to the submissions made by Mr. Panda.
6. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the AO to decide the
issue of surviving period by taking into consideration the aforesaid
judgments and decide the same by granting an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner or its representative and pass a detailed and speaking
order.
7. The above exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the order as an outer limit.
8. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of."
6. For parity of reasons, we deem it appropriate to set aside the
impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and remand the matter back
to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issue of surviving period by
taking into consideration the aforesaid chart and the judgments of the
Supreme Court and this Court and decide the issue afresh by granting
hearing to the petitioner through its representative and pass a detailed and
speaking order.
7. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight
weeks from today, as an outer limit.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending
application stands disposed of having become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
VINOD KUMAR, J
OCTOBER 29, 2025
M
