M/S SUPREME BUILD-CAP PVT. LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (5), DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 08.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 4543/2026 CM APPL. 22167/2026 CM APPL. 22168/2026 M/S SUPREME BUILD-CAP PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Tiwari, Ms. Kanika Jain and Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (5), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia SSC with Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 29.03.2026 on various grounds including the basic ground that the initiation of reassessment proceedings by way of the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 was time barred, as the limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 at the relevant time was only six years. 2. Mr. Ruchir Bhaita, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department at the outset raised an objection regarding Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS W.P.(C) 4543/2026 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:16.04.2026 11:32:23 maintainability and submitted that the petitioner has come to this Court against an assessment order and since there is a statutory remedy available, this Court should not entertain the writ petition and relegate it to avail the statutory remedy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee immediately responded to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia by submitting that during the assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice dated 21.03.2026, the petitioner did file a reply and