$~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 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 raised a plea of the notice being time barred but the same was not even considered by the Assessing Officer (AO).

4. He further submitted that petitioner’s basic challenge to the impugned assessment order is, that the proceedings are time barred in light of judgment of this Court dated 23.07.2024 titled as Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-70(1) & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7364/2024, 2024:DHC:5411-DB and since the issue as canvassed goes to the root of the matter, this Court can well exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in light of the series of judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and by this Court.

5. He argued that a simple look at the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 shows that it is per-se beyond prescribed period of limitation and if that impugned notice is declared void and illegal for being beyond limitation, the assessment order shall definitely fall flat on the ground.

6. In response to the petitioner’s submission, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation. He however, submitted that if the petitioner was so aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings, it ought to have approached this Court before an assessment order was passed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the initiation of reassessment proceedings vide notice dated 30.08.2024 is fundamentally void being beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Though the petitioner has approached this Court after suffering an assessment order, however given the fact that the petitioner had raised jurisdictional objection before the AO in its reply and the same remained unheeded and undecided, we are of the view that simply because the proceedings have culminated into an assessment order, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the agony of an order which is without jurisdiction on the face of it, until the appellate authority does a formal act of annulling it.

8. Requiring the petitioner to take up the formality rather rigmarole of the appellate proceedings when the facts are crystal clear, would be iniquitous in the present factual matrix. We are, therefore, persuaded to allow the present writ petition in light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s Magadh Sugar Mills an