Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Meena Chawla, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the notice dated 14.10.2022 issued under Section 148, the order dated 18.11.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the reassessment order dated 29.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the demand notice of the same date, and the subsequent order dated 07.05.2025 passed under Sections 260/147/144B for Assessment Year 2016–17.

Earlier, a notice dated 31.03.2021 had been issued under Section 148, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 2016/2022 and was disposed of as part of a batch of matters led by Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Delhi High Court, by its order dated 04.02.2025, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine the surviving period of reassessment in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Delhi High Court decisions including Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.

Pursuant to the remand, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, upholding the reassessment order dated 29.05.2023.

Issues Involved

Whether the Assessing Officer complied with the remand directions issued in Kanwaljeet Kaur regarding determination of the surviving period of reassessment, and whether the writ petition challenging the reassessment order was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that although detailed submissions were filed pursuant to the remand, the Assessing Officer failed to consider various contentions raised against the reassessment proceedings and mechanically reiterated the reassessment order dated 29.05.2023. It was argued that non-consideration of these submissions rendered the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Revenue submitted that the scope of remand under the judgment in Kanwaljeet Kaur was limited to determination of the surviving period of reassessment in light of binding precedents. It was argued that the Assessing Officer passed a reasoned and speaking order addressing the issue mandated by the High Court and that other objections could be raised before the appellate authority.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court held that the remand directions in Kanwaljeet Kaur required the Assessing Officer to determine only whether the reassessment notice survived in view of the judgments in Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the petitioner conceded that the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 was a speaking order dealing with the surviving period.

The Court observed that other factual and legal objections raised by the petitioner were beyond the scope of the limited remand and that the High Court had expressly reserved liberty for assessees to raise such contentions independently in accordance with law.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, the Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that the writ petition was not maintainable.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that where the High Court remands a matter to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose, compliance with such directions cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on grounds that fall outside the scope of remand. Assessees are required to pursue statutory appellate remedies for adjudication of other issues arising from reassessment orders.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had complied with the remand directions issued in Kanwaljeet Kaur, declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies available in law against the reassessment order dated 29.05.2023 read with the order dated 07.05.2025.

 

Link to download order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769678264_MEENACHAWLAVsINCOMETAXOFFICERWARD611DELHIANDORS..pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.