IRIS HOSPITALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1) DELHI & ORS.

W.P.(C)/16840/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Iris Hospitalities Private Limited, the petitioner, challenging the notices for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The primary argument against the reassessment was the duplication of proceedings for the same reason across two assessment years. The respondent's counsel assured the court that despite the reassessment proceedings being undertaken for both years, the assessments would be consolidated under a single Assessing Officer to avoid any potential harassment or duplicacy of income assessment. This assurance led the court to dispose of the writ petitions without further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834699 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK MARATHA; APOORV AGARWAL; NUPUR SHARMA; BABITA SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYANK PATWANI; AKASH OJHA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Reassessment; Section 148; Section 56
• Section: 148; 56

Judgement Text

"$~4 & 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16840/2025 & CM APPL. 69220/2025 + W.P.(C) 16924/2025 & CM APPL. 69576/2025 IRIS HOSPITALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Patwani, Mr. Akash Ojha, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Ms. Babita Saini, SPC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 02.02.2026 1. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the notices for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner for assessment year 2019-20 so also for assessment year 2020-21. 2. The basic plank for which the petition has been preferred is, that the reassessment proceedings for 2 assessment years cannot be undertaken for the very same reason. 3. Pursuant to Court’s query, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that maybe the reassessment proceedings had been undertaken for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 13:39:21 Printed from counselvise.com 2 years, but the petitioner shall be assessed only in one of the years so far as deeming fiction given under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act is concerned. 4. It was further assured that only one Assessing Officer shall pass orders for both the proceedings, so as to ward off any harassment or duplicacy of the income. 5. In view of the assurance so given by Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, we are not inclined to continue with the present writ petitions. 6. Writ petitions, therefore, stand disposed of in terms of the statement so given by Mr. Agarwal. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 2, 2026/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 13:39:21 Printed from counselvise.com "