MANISH GUPTA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-34(1) DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 30.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 6779/2023 CM APPL. 26487/2023 MANISH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Vidhan Jain, Advocate versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-34(1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC, Ms. Easha, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 and has filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ/Directions against the Respondent & kindly Quash/Set Aside impugned order u/s 148A(d) dated 20.07.2022 & notice u/s 148 dated 20.07.2022 of the IT Act; B. Cost of present proceedings, may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent; and” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in view of the settled Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6779/2023 Page 1 of 3 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC), by this Court in the case of Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2025:DHC:547-DB and also of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sandeep Singh Saluja v. Income Tax Department and Others, 2025:MPHC-IND:19495 and also in view of the factual position which emerges in the petition, the impugned notice dated 20.07.2022 and order dated 20.07.2022 are liable to be set aside. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the appropriate shall be that the matter be sent back to the Assessing Officer to enable him to apply his mind on the facts wh