ALKA AGARWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4254/2026HC DelhiDLHC01012881202601 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned reassessment order dated 27.02.2026 and all consequential proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 27.02.2026 in accordance with law. This consideration must include the petitioner's objections in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal. The AO is to pass a fresh order within eight weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, if the petitioner requests a personal opportunity of hearing, the AO shall grant the same. The petition was allowed accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alka Agarwal, challenged a reassessment order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, Delhi, under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order violated principles of natural justice and settled legal positions, citing the Supreme Court case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The revenue's counsel conceded that while the assessee had filed a reply on 27.02.2026, the assessment order was passed on the same day, potentially due to inadvertence or a communication gap, without considering the reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order dated 27.02.2026, passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and settled legal position. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the settled legal position, specifically referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent accepted that the assessee had filed a reply on 27.02.2026, and the assessment order was passed on the same day. The revenue acknowledged that the order might have been passed without considering the petitioner's reply due to inadvertence or a communication gap.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4254/2026, CM APPL. 20672/2026, CM APPL. 20673/2026

ALKA AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

01.04.2026 O R D E R 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the reassessment order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the respondent under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, learned counsel for petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned order is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but is also against the settled legal position, including the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. 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 06/04/2026 at 11:08:47

Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754. 3. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepted that the assessee seems to have filed a reply on 27.02.2026 however the assessment order came to be passed on very same day and may be because of inadvertence or communication gap, the order came to be passed without considering petitioner’s reply. 4. In view of the facts noted above, we set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 and consequential proceedings and remand the matter back to the AO. The Assessing officer shall consider petitioner’s reply dated 27.02.2026 in accordance with law, including petitioner’s objection in the light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from today. 5. In case the petitioner prays for personal opportunity of hearing, the AO shall give the same to the petitioner. 6. Petition allowed accordingly, CM APPL. 20672/2026 and CM APPL. 20673/2026 stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 1, 2026/dd 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 06/04/2026 at 11:08:47

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →