NAF INDIA HOLDINGS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Learned counsel submitted that had the AO considered petitioner’s reply, he would have perhaps taken correct view of the matter and would have agreed with petitioner’s contentions and drop the proceedings. But the AO has intentionally recorded that no reply was filed by the petitioner, so as to proceed against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel could not dispute the position that the reply was filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2024, as asserted by the petitioner. 5. Since the factum of the reply having been filed remains undisputed and there is no discussion of the reply, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 deciding petitioner’s objection is an order passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. The same is liable to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. 6. The fact that the petitioner had filed reply can be discerned from para no.4 of the impugned order dated 31.03.2024, inasmuch as the AO had recorded that the assessee had furnished the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and Foreign Portfolio Certificate (FPI) issued by SEBI. 7. In para no.4 of the impugned order the AO had further observed that the assessee had not provided source of investment and receipt/document along with the bank statement of receipt of foreign remittance, which clearly suggests that the assessee had taken part in the proceedings and had filed a reply and documents. 8. On perusal of the reply and pleas taken by the petitioner, we find that there are substantial grounds which the petitioner had taken and if the same were considered objectively and in accordance with law, the view which the AO has taken could have been different than the one, which he has taken. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 12:17:27

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the AO under Section 148A(d) and consequential notice of even date, issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. 10. While doing so, we make it clear that we have not pronounced upon merits or otherwise of the contentions of the petitioner. The AO shall, therefore, be free to take an independent view of the petitioner’s plea and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. The AO shall fix a date of hearing and intimate the same to the petitioner on its registered e-mail ID. On receipt of the date of hearing, the petitioner shall be allowed to file additional reply/submissions including documents, whereafter the AO shall fix a date providing personal hearing. 12. The counsel/authorised representative of the petitioner shall appear before the AO and represent its case, whereafter the AO shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law before 31.12.2026. 13. Petitioner’s right to take up remedies against such order shall stand reserved. 14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 15. Pending application(s) stand(s) disposed of. 16. The approving authority for the fresh proceedings to be conducted shall remain the same, as was competent and had granted approval at the time of passing the original order dated 31.03.2024. DINESH MEHTA, J. ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/sid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/10/2026 at 12:17:27