$~ 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4305/2023, CM APPL. 16592/2023 &CM APPL. 16593/2023 MADHVI GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Aniket Khanduri, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat & Mr. VK Saxena, JSCs. Mr. Devrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings including notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) as elucidated by this Court in the case of Delhi Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. reported in 2026:DHC:2617-DB. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the initial notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued on 25.06.2021, whereafter in pursuance of 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 30/07/2026 at 15:19:47 judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2023) 1 SCC 617, a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 30.05.2022 to which two weeks’ time was given to the petitioner to file reply i.e. by 15.06.2022. The reply was filed by the assessee on 15.06.2022 and thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 came to be issued on 20.07.2022. 3. She argued that in light of the remaining period as per Rajeev Bansal (supra), the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice passed under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued on 20.07.2022 is clearly time barred as the surviving period has to be calculated in light of Para Nos. 107 and 108 of Rajeev Bansal (supra), which lays down that the number of days between date of issuance of original Section 148 notice and expiry of extended limitation under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain) Act, 2020 will be the surviving period. 4. She informed that in the present case, the original Section 148 notice was issued on 25.06.2021 and the extended limitation under TOLA expired on 30.06.2021, and submitted that the surviving period will be of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed. 5. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, is not in a position to dispute this position of facts and law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the factual and legal matrix, we are of the clear opinion that the surviving period left with the assessing officer was of 5 days from the date on which the reply to Section 148A(b) notice was filed (15.06.2026). Hence, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 ought to have been passed latest by 20.06.2022, which as a matter of fact came to be passed on 20.07.2022. 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 30/07/2026 at 15:19:47 7. The order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 are, therefore, clearly time barred, thus the same are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The writ petition stands allowed. 9. The pending applications are disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 23, 2026/ nk 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 30/07/2026 at 15:19:47