UCB Developers LLP V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Delhi

W.P.(C)/19125/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/S UCB Developers LLP, the petitioner, challenging notices and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The core issue was the validity of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the petitioner argued were barred by limitation. The petitioner relied on precedents from similar cases, specifically citing the judgments in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which supported their argument. The respondents attempted to distinguish the facts of the case but were unsuccessful. The court, after considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the cited precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the procedural error in issuing the notice beyond the allowable time frame.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830428 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors., Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK MARATHA; APOORV AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN KUMAR; MOHAN CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Limitation; Notice
• Section: 148; 149(1)

Judgement Text

"$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18201/2025, CM APPL. 75275/2025 M/S UCB DEVELOPERS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar & Mr. Mohan Chaudhary, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Mr. Pushpag Shah Johari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 14.01.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notices dated 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024 & 17.06.2025 so also the consequent proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), by the respondents for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is clearly barred by limitation as per second proviso to Section 149 of the Act of 1961, inasmuch as the same is beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 10 years. He relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of 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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23 Printed from counselvise.com this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 12091/2023 titled Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors. decided on 27.05.2024 so also the judgment rendered in the W.P.(C) 317/2025 titled Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr. decided on 14.01.2025. 3. Taking the Court through the judgment of Pankaj Jain (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts therein are exactly identical to the facts involved in the present case inasmuch as the relevant AY in both the cases is 2015-16. The only change, which too has no bearing on the case is that in the case of Pankaj Jain (supra), the notice was issued on 30.08.2024 while in the instant case the same was issued on 31.08.2024. 4. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned SSC for the respondents-Department though tried to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts involved in Pankaj Jain (supra), but he could not. 5. Even without referring to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the basic provision contended, i.e. the second proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act of 1961 is taken into consideration, in the factual background of the present case, it is clear that 148A(b) notice was issued on 12.08.2024, whereafter, notice under Section 148A(d) came to be issued on 31.08.2024 for the AY 2025-26. 6. Needless to record that the assessment year in which the notice dated 31.08.2024 was issued is, 2025-26. If period of 10 years backwards is counted, then the same would naturally be, the AY 2016-17. As has been explained by the Division Bench in judgment in the case of Dinesh Jindal (supra), so also Pankaj Jain (supra). 7. Hence, notice dated 31.08.2024 issued for AY 2015-16 is clearly 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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23 Printed from counselvise.com barred by limitation. 8. If the facts of Pankaj Jain (supra) are considered, they are exactly identical to the present case, with a minor but insignificant difference. (in the case of the Pankaj Jain (supra) the notice was issued on 30.08.2024 while the notice in the case in hands was issued on 31.08.2024) 9. In view of the discussions foregoing, the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 so also the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. All the pending applications are disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. JANUARY 14, 2026/sr 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 17/01/2026 at 13:45:23 Printed from counselvise.com "