Income Tax: Delhi HC Remands back Reopening of Case to Re-examine Time Limitation:

Income Tax: Delhi HC Remands back Reopening of Case to Re-examine Time Limitation

High Court remands Filatex India’s reassessment case for AY 2014-15, directing the AO to re-evaluate surviving limitation under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal.

Court sets aside Section 148 notice for AY 2014-15; directs fresh determination of surviving limitation period in light of Supreme Court’s framework

authorMeetu KumaridateNov 18, 2025
Last update on Nov 18, 2025
Income Tax: Delhi HC Remands Back Reopening of Case to Re-examine Time Limitation Filatex India Ltd challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The original notice dated 08.06.2021 was issued under the old regime, later treated as a Section 148A(b) notice after the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashish Agarwal. The petitioner argued that the subsequent notice dated 30.07.2022, issued under Section 148 after an order under Section 148A(d), was barred by limitation under the framework clarified in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. A detailed limitation chart was placed on record showing that for AY 2014-15, the permissible time, considering the six-year limit under old Section 149, the TOLA extensions, the “deemed stay” period, and the surviving days, expired on 28/29 June 2022. Since the fresh notice was issued only on 30 July 2022, the petitioner contended that the notice was time-barred. The Revenue did not seriously dispute the limitation computation.
Assessee not required to prove "source of source" of funds credited as unsecured loans: Delhi HC
Main Issue: Whether the reassessment notice issued on 30 July 2022 for AY 2014-15 survived limitation under Sections 147–149 as interpreted in Rajeev Bansal, and whether the matter should be remanded for the AO to determine the surviving period.
Delhi HC Flags NFRA for Breach of Rules, Calls for Clear Separation of Powers
HC's Rulling: The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned Section 148 notice and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO must re-examine the question of surviving limitation by considering the petitioner’s limitation chart and the binding decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, including Rajeev Bansal, Ram Balram, T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta. The AO has been directed to grant a hearing to the petitioner’s representative and issue a detailed, reasoned order within eight weeks. All further proceedings will abide by this determination. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2159
Up Next

Loading suggestions…