TARUN CHAUHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(5), DELHI.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13450/2026HC DelhiDLHC01043692202615 September 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the issue concerning the interest amount was an apparent error that needed rectification by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within 15 days. The Assessing Officer was instructed to rectify the error and issue a fresh demand notice within 30 days of receiving the application. The petitioner was then advised to file an appeal, along with a stay application, within 30 days of the rectified order. Regarding the cross-examination, the Court directed that if the petitioner sought copies of statements from Mr. Manik Dhingra, Mr. Vikrant Sharma, and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sharma, the Appellate Authority should provide them in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarun Chauhan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 25, 2026, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(5), Delhi. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by denying the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Gajendra Sharma and Mr. Manik Dhingra. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the demand notice showed an interest amount of Rs. 22,11,888/- against a total tax demand of Rs. 10,19,278/-, which appeared to be an error copied from a previous demand note and was issued without application of mind.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Gajendra Sharma and Mr. Manik Dhingra, leading to a miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the interest amount of Rs. 22,11,888/- shown in the demand notice, against a total tax demand of Rs. 10,19,278/-, is a per se error indicating a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the denial of cross-examination violated natural justice and caused a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner also contended that the interest amount was an apparent error, copied from a previous demand note, demonstrating a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the respondent revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~154 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010436922026 + W.P.(C) 13450/2026, CM APPL. 62810/2026 & CM APPL. 62811/2026 TARUN CHAUHAN .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(5), DELHI. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R %

15.09.

2026

1.

The petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 25.08.2026 by way of the present writ petition.

2.

Petitioner in person argued that the Assessing Officer has violated the principles of natural justice, as despite petitioner’s request he did not provide opportunity of cross-examination of Mr. Gajendra Sharma and Mr. Manik Dhingra. He added that such failure on the part of the Assessing Officer has led to miscarriage of justice.

3.

He further submitted that against the total demand of tax to the tune of Rs.10,19,278/- an interest to the tune of Rs. 22,11,888/- has been shown in the demand notice, which is per se without application of mind inasmuch as the 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 18/09/2026 at 11:36:14

amount of interest has been copied and pasted from the previous demand note.

4.

Heard the petitioner in person.

5.

So far as the amount of interest is concerned, a simple look thereat shows that it is an apparent error, which needs to be rectified by the Assessing Officer as and when an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed.

6.

The petitioner is thus directed to file an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of 15 days from today, before the Assessing Officer, who shall do the needful and issue a fresh demand notice in accordance with law within a period of 30 days of receipt of rectification application.

7.

The petitioner shall then file an appeal (within a period of 30 days of issuance of rectified order) before the Competent Authority, alongwith stay application.

8.

In case, the petitioner seeks copies of the statement given by Mr. Manik Dhingra, Mr. Vikrant Sharma & Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sharma, the Appellate Authority shall provide the same to the petitioner in accordance with law.

9.

The writ petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/nk

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 18/09/2026 at 11:36:14

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →