Delhi HC Quashes Reassessment Notice; Identical Issue Already Examined in Earlier 147 Proceedings

Assessee, who deals in the real estate business, filed a writ petition challenging a series of reassessment notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 and the later order dated 30.06.2025 were unlawful, as the same issue, namely, alleged non-genuine transactions worth Rs. 27.72 crore with M/s. Mekaster Finlease Ltd. had already been fully examined in earlier reassessment proceedings for the same year.

It was submitted that the earlier reassessment, completed vide order dated 17.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, had already made an addition of Rs. 22.82 crore concerning the same transaction after verification under Section 133(6). The petitioner argued that initiating another reassessment of an identical issue violated settled law that prohibits reopening assessments once issues have been scrutinised. The Revenue did not contest this factual position before the Court.

Issue Raised: Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was correct in initiating fresh reassessment proceedings under Section 148A for AY 2019-20 on the same issue already adjudicated in earlier proceedings under Section 147.

SC Held: The Court held that since the Revenue did not dispute the petitioner’s contention that the same issue had already been considered earlier under Section 147, the impugned order under Section 148A(3) and the later given Section 148 notice dated 30.06.2025 could not stand. The Court accepted the petitioner’s suggestion that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration.

Therefore, the High Court set aside the said reassessment order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh, reasoned decision after giving full opportunity of hearing and permitting the petitioner to file supporting documents. The AO was instructed to complete the process within eight weeks, and the parties were directed to proceed thereafter in accordance with the law.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below