Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT
Case data and operative result
Repository ID: F2J-C-0301
Court / Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case number: W.P.(C) 6217/2023, 6891/2023, 6884/2023 & 6183/2023
Decision date: 26 July 2023
Law family: Income Tax
Outcome category: Quashed / set aside
Sections / provisions: 148A(b); 148A(d); 148; 282A; CBDT reassessment instructions; Section 148A(b); Section 148A(d); section 148A; section 148; section 151; Section 282A
Extractive case note
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement reserved on: 13.07.2023 Judgement pronounced on : 26.07.2023 + W.P.(C) 6217/2023 & CM APPL. 24446/2023 JINDAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. + W.P.(C) 6891/2023 & CM APPL. 26869/2023 KIRAN CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels + W.P.(C) 6884/2023 & CM APPL. 26860/2023 KIRAN CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels + W.P.(C) 6183/2023&CM APPL. 24310/2023 JINDAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.: 1. The factual matrix being similar and legal matrix being same, these four writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the relevant legal position. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed legality of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act on multiple grounds. However, the petitions can be disposed of on one of those grounds without traversing through the remaining.
Operative-result extract
4. One of the grounds on which these writ petitions can be disposed of is as follows. According to the petitioners, notices dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, which were mailed to the petitioners on 08.06.2022 had lost efficacy after 03.06.2022, therefore, the notices as well as the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act are liable to be set aside.
Download the complete local judgment PDF (F2J-C-0301)
The complete packaged judgment text and PDF are the controlling records. The case note is extractive and should not be treated as a substitute for the operative order or later-history verification.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Section 148A notice authentication: validity where name/designation of issuing officer is absent and section 282A requirements are not met.
Result: Section 148A(b) notices and 148A(d) orders set aside; Revenue liberty preserved. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 148A(b); 148A(d); 148; 282A; CBDT reassessment instructions
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Section 148A notice authentication: validity where name/designation of issuing officer is absent and section 282A requirements are not met.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement reserved on: 13.07.2023 Judgement pronounced on : 26.07.2023 + W.P.(C) 6217/2023 & CM APPL. 24446/2023 JINDAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. + W.P.(C) 6891/2023 & CM APPL. 26869/2023 KIRAN CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels
+ W.P.(C) 6884/2023 & CM APPL. 26860/2023 KIRAN CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels + W.P.(C) 6183/2023&CM APPL. 24310/2023 JINDAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates.
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.: 1. The factual matrix being similar and legal matrix being same, these four writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the relevant legal position.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed legality of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act on multiple grounds. However, the petitions can be disposed of on one of those grounds without traversing through the remaining.
4. One of the grounds on which these writ petitions can be disposed of is as follows. According to the petitioners, notices dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, which were mailed to the petitioners on 08.06.2022 had lost efficacy after 03.06.2022, therefore, the notices as well as the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act are liable to be set aside.
Appellant / assessee submissions
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.: 1. The factual matrix being similar and legal matrix being same, these four writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the relevant legal position.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed legality of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act on multiple grounds. However, the petitions can be disposed of on one of those grounds without traversing through the remaining.
4. One of the grounds on which these writ petitions can be disposed of is as follows. According to the petitioners, notices dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, which were mailed to the petitioners on 08.06.2022 had lost efficacy after 03.06.2022, therefore, the notices as well as the consequent orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act are liable to be set aside.
9. In view of above discussion, the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act and orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act, impugned in these writ petitions are set aside and the petitions are allowed, however, granting liberty to the respondent/revenue to take further steps in accordance with law.
10. Consequently, the pending applications also stand disposed of.
Ratio and legal principle
- An electronically generated reassessment notice must still identify/authenticate the issuing income-tax authority in accordance with section 282A and binding administrative instructions applicable to the notice date.
- Where the initiating section 148A(b) notice is invalid for the identified authentication defect, the consequential section 148A(d) order cannot be sustained merely on the defective notice.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with section 148a notice authentication: validity where name/designation of issuing officer is absent and section 282a requirements are not met. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Official issuing-authority judgment copy packaged |
| Repository release | Published |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT?
Section 148A notice authentication: validity where name/designation of issuing officer is absent and section 282A requirements are not met.
Which facts matter most?
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement reserved on: 13.07.2023 Judgement pronounced on : 26.07.2023 + W.P.(C) 6217/2023 & CM APPL. 24446/2023 JINDAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1),DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh & Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. + W.P.(C) 6891/2023 & CM APPL. 26869/2023 KIRAN CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain & Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME…
What did the Delhi High Court decide?
10. Consequently, the pending applications also stand disposed of.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
An electronically generated reassessment notice must still identify/authenticate the issuing income-tax authority in accordance with section 282A and binding administrative instructions applicable to the notice date. Where the initiating section 148A(b) notice is invalid for the identified authentication defect, the consequential section 148A(d) order cannot be sustained merely on the defective notice.
Which provisions should be checked?
148A(b), 148A(d), 148, 282A, CBDT reassessment instructions
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Section 148A notice authentication: validity where name/designation of issuing officer is absent and section 282A requirements are not met - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 148A(b) - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- 148A(d) - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- 148 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- 282A - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- CBDT reassessment instructions - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS - Madhya Pradesh High Court - Jabalpur
- Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO - ITAT Dehradun Circuit Bench
- ITO CIR 6(1)-4 VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - ITAT Mumbai
Different outcome / possible distinction
- JM Financial Asset Management Ltd. v. DCIT - Allowed
- Stewart Science College,Cuttack Vs ITO Ward 1(1), Cuttack - Operative order controls
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Official primary copy, digitally signed and authenticated · Repository status: Published
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 148Section 151