MR. ARUN SEHGAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13995/2026HC DelhiDLHC01045420202601 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the respondent had withdrawn the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, which had transferred the petitioner's jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous. Any pending applications were also disposed of. The Court also noted that the competent authority would consider the petitioner's objection dispassionately and in accordance with law, as mentioned in a previous order dated 22.09.2026. No specific finding on the merits of the original transfer order was made as the petition was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Arun Sehgal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 16.03.2026. This order, passed by the respondent, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, had transferred the petitioner's jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the respondent had subsequently withdrawn the impugned order, rendering the petition infructuous. The High Court was considering the petition and pending applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the withdrawal of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, which transferred the petitioner's jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has withdrawn the impugned order, and therefore, the petition has become infructuous. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The judgment only notes the submission made by the petitioner's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010454202026 + W.P.(C) 13995/2026 & CM APPLs. 65449/2026, 65450/2026

MR. ARUN SEHGAL

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Upvan Gupta, Adv.

Versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 NEW DELHI

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

01.10.2026

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has withdrawn the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, whereby the petitioner’s jurisdiction had been transferred by exercising power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the petition has, therefore been rendered infructuous. 2. The petition is accordingly disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 3. Needless to observe that as mentioned in the order dated 22.09.2026, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner’s objection dispassionately and in accordance with law.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. OCTOBER 1, 2026/p’ma 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 05/10/2026 at 11:15:53

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →