Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/9112/2026 of RITA KUMARI Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 on 7 October 2026
9112/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07 th October, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010291622026 + W.P.(C) 9112/2026 CM APPL. 42747/2026 CM APPL. 42748/2026 RITA KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Anushka Rawal,
$~9
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07th October, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010291622026
+
W.P.(C) 9112/2026 CM APPL. 42747/2026 CM APPL. 42748/2026
RITA KUMARI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Bina Gupta, Ms. Anushka Rawal, Ms.
Ishkia,
Mr.
Abhyudaya
Shankar
Bajpai, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
CIRCLE 27
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit
Pareek, JSC & Mr. Shamindra Kumar
Dev, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) seeking to reassess the income of the petitioner for assessment year 2015-16.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the time period prescribed under
Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
3. He submitted that the reassessment proceedings arise from the search and seizure action conducted under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 on 02.03.2022 at the premises of Gaursons Group and its associates. Since the impugned notice has been issued on 31.03.2026, the relevant assessment year, for the purposes of computing the outer ten-year period, would be AY 2026-27.
4. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department was not in a position to controvert to the factual matrix of the case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It does not need much discussion that the impugned notice, dated 31.03.2026, falls in the financial year 2025-26 corresponding to assessment year 2026-27. The ten-year period would, therefore, extend only up to assessment year 2017-18. The impugned notice qua assessment year 2015- 16 is clearly beyond the permissible limitation period, the escaped income being more than Rs.50,00,000/-. If calculated backward from assessment year 2026-27, the position is as under: For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year
AY 2026-27
AY 2025-26
AY 2024-25
AY 2023-24
AY 2022-23
AY 2021-22
AY 2020-21
AY 2019-20
AY 2018-19 10th year AY 2017-18
7. The impugned notice for AY 2015-16 is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
8. The writ petition is allowed, the notice dated 31.03.2026 is quashed. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE
ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) OCTOBER 7, 2026/sid