Second reassessment notice under Section 148 for income already assessed and taxed is illegal and invalid

By | September 17, 2026
0 Comment
Second reassessment notice under Section 148 for income already assessed and taxed is illegal and invalid
Issue
Whether an Assessing Officer (AO) can legally issue a second notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to Section 280 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) for a transaction that has already been assessed and brought to tax pursuant to an earlier Section 148 notice.
Facts
  • The Assessing Officer (AO) had earlier initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee under Section 148 by issuing a notice dated 30.03.2024.
  • The original reassessment proceedings culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025, through which the income in question was fully brought to tax.
  • Subsequently, the AO issued another notice under Section 148 dated 31.08.2024 in respect of the exact same transaction.
  • The assessee challenged the validity of the second Section 148 notice by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
Decision
  • The impugned second notice dated 31.08.2024 was beyond the scope of Section 148 because no income had escaped assessment regarding the specified transaction.
  • The second notice impermissibly sought to tax the very same income that had already been assessed and taxed under the prior reassessment order.
  • The impugned Section 148 notice was held to be clearly illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed.
Key Takeaways
  • Absence of Income Escapement: Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 pre-suppose that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; if the income is already assessed and taxed, Section 148 cannot be invoked.
  • Prohibition on Double Taxation/Duplicate Notices: Revenue authorities cannot issue multiple reassessment notices for the exact same transaction once it has been subjected to tax in a completed assessment order.
  • Writ Remedy: Issuance of a duplicate Section 148 notice for an already assessed income represents a jurisdictional defect, making a writ petition under Article 226 a maintainable and appropriate remedy to quash such proceedings.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mrs. Neeru Sehgal
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 2985 OF 2026
CM APPL. Nos. 14424 and 14425 of2026
SEPTEMBER  1, 2026
Upvan Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Sanjeev Menon, Rahul Singh, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Gaurav Kumar and Prateek Bhati, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) on various grounds, including the ground that for the very same reason and in respect of the very same transaction, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961were earlier initiated vide notice dated 30.03.2024 and culminated in an assessment order dated 30.03.2025.
2. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid position of fact and law.He, however, submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, we have no iota of doubt that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 relates to the very same transaction, for which proceedings against the petitioner had been taken up by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the same had led to assessment order dated 30.03.2025.
4. So far as the question of delay is concerned, we find that the impugned notice is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, and the petition has been filed within 18 months, the delay is thus not substantial to be fatal to the petition’s maintainability.
5. Furthermore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the income has not escaped assessment, for it had already been brought to tax by way of above referred assessment order dated 30.03.2025. The impugned notice thus, seeks to tax the very same income, which has been taxed or was sought to be taxed. The notice is therefore, clearly illegal and liable to be quashed.
6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 is hereby quashed.
7. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.