M/S MHJ METALTECHS PVT LTD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd February, 2026. + W.P.(C) 880/2026 CM APPL. 4297/2026, CM APPL. 6774/2026 M/S MHJ METALTECHS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the proceedings that have been initiated by the respondent-Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) vide notice dated 20.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) so also the subsequent letter/notice dated 17.04.2025, which the respondent has issued. 2. While inviting Court’s attention towards the notice dated 20.03.2024 and the reasons recorded therein, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a passing reference has been made to transactions of Rs.46,00,460/- and Rs.89,86,36,597/- as bogus sales and purchases and no details or information was given by the respondent about the aforesaid transactions. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 880/2026 Page 1 of 5 By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2026 11:51:01 He submitted that when the subsequent letter dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) was issued, the AO did not provide any further details about the allegations and suddenly, name of the supplier qua the purchase transaction of Rs.46,00,460/- has been changed to Reema Polychem Pvt. Ltd., which earlier was shown as M/s Johnson Watch Group and M/s Kapoor Watch Group & others. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that while initiating th