Mrs Neeru Sehgal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15, New Delhi & Ors.
ID: F2J-C-2711 Court: Delhi High Court - Orders Case number: W.P.(C) 2985/2026 Decision date: 2026-09-01 Subject: Income Tax Recorded disposition: ALLOWED; IMPUGNED NOTICE QUASHED
Source status: Complete public court text captured. The downloadable PDF is a Finin2min-generated searchable reproduction, not an original court-issued PDF. The judgment-copy page and official court portal are recorded separately.
Case factors
Facts — source-derived extract
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') on various grounds, including the ground that for the very same reason and in respect of the very same transaction, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961were earlier initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2024 and culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025.
Issues — source-derived extract
The controlling questions are those framed and answered in the complete court text; no additional issue has been inferred editorially.
Court reasoning — source-derived extract
4. So far as the question of delay is concerned, we find that the impugned notice is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, and the petition has been filed within 18 months, the delay is thus not substantial to be fatal to the petition's maintainability. 5. Furthermore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income has not escaped assessment, for it had already been brought to tax by way of above referred assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The impugned notice thus, seeks to tax the very same income, which has been taxed or was sought to be taxed. The notice is therefore, clearly illegal and liable to be quashed.
Operative order — source-derived extract
5. Furthermore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income has not escaped assessment, for it had already been brought to tax by way of above referred assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The impugned notice thus, seeks to tax the very same income, which has been taxed or was sought to be taxed. The notice is therefore, clearly illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 is hereby quashed.
Key provisions detected
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Authorities detected
No authority separately detected; verify the complete text.
These extracts and detections are navigation aids, not substitute holdings. The complete text controls.
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Mrs Neeru Sehgal vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 1 September, 2026
$~7
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010081902026
+ W.P.(C) 2985/2026, CM APPL. 14424/2026 & CM APPL.
14425/2026
MRS NEERU SEHGAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Upvan Gupta, Adv.
versus
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 NEW
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr.
Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul
Singh, JSC and Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC
with Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr.
Prateek Bhati, Advs. for Revenue.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
ORDER
% 01.09.2026
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') on various grounds, including the ground that for the very same reason and in respect of the very same transaction, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961were earlier initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2024 and culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025.
2. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid position of fact and law.He, 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 02/09/2026 at 22:30:25 however, submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, we have no iota of doubt that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 relates to the very same transaction, for which proceedings against the petitioner had been taken up by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the same had led to assessment order dated 30.03.2025.
4. So far as the question of delay is concerned, we find that the impugned notice is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, and the petition has been filed within 18 months, the delay is thus not substantial to be fatal to the petition's maintainability.
5. Furthermore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income has not escaped assessment, for it had already been brought to tax by way of above referred assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The impugned notice thus, seeks to tax the very same income, which has been taxed or was sought to be taxed. The notice is therefore, clearly illegal and liable to be quashed.
6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 is hereby quashed.
7. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026/sds 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 02/09/2026 at 22:30:25