Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/580/2024 of PREETI CHADHA Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS. on 29 September 2026
580/2024 Page 1 of 3 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29 th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010009462024 + W.P.(C) 580/2024 & CM APPL. 2583/2024 PREETI CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER,
$~13
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th September, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010009462024
+
W.P.(C) 580/2024 & CM APPL. 2583/2024
PREETI CHADHA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS.
....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms.
Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh,
JSCs.
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 25.07.2022 under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) in furtherance of the satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022 recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2016-17.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned notice has been passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time (AY 2016-17).
3. He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi).
4. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved. He, however, submitted that an SLP against the said judgment has been filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It does not need much discussion that as the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022, i.e. in the assessment year 2023-24, the notice passed on 25.07.2022 qua assessment year 2016-17 is clearly beyond the limitation period (which shall be 6 years as the escaped income is less than Rs.50,00,000/-), if calculated backward from immediately preceding year from the relevant assessment year i.e. 2023-24, which means financial year 2021-22 or assessment year 2022-23. For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year
AY 2022-23
AY 2021-22
AY 2020-21
AY 2019-20
AY 2018-19 6th year AY 2017-18
7. The notice impugned is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Sections 153A and 153C of the Act of (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) so also in light of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
8. The writ petition is allowed, the notice dated 25.07.2022 is quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE
ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/ck