ANURADHA DOSHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3947/2026HC DelhiDLHC01012009202619 May 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while the service of notice on the address provided in the PAN or passport of an NRI is generally considered sufficient compliance, the assessment order in this case deserved to be set aside because the petitioner was not heard. The Court reiterated its earlier observation that orders passed contrary to the principles of natural justice can be interfered with under Article 226. The Court noted that the rectification order dated 25.04.2024, which significantly increased the tax demand, was also passed without proper service of notice under Section 154(3), depriving the assessee of a hearing. Therefore, the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022, and all consequential demand notices, penalty orders, and recovery proceedings were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to serve a fresh notice in accordance with law and proceed while observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner would not be entitled to plead that the fresh proceedings are time-barred.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuradha Doshi, an NRI residing in Abu Dhabi since 2006, challenged an assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She also challenged consequential demand notices, penalty orders, and recovery proceedings, including the attachment of her bank account on 12.01.2026. The petitioner claimed she only became aware of these actions on 27.01.2026 when she attempted to operate her bank account. She obtained a copy of the assessment order from the ITBA portal. The assessment order was passed based on an address in Inderpuri, New Delhi, which she had not resided at for 20 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 31.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-service of notice on the petitioner? Assessee's contentions: The assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice as no notice was served. The address used in the order was outdated. The Assessing Officer (AO) could have obtained the petitioner's correct address from her bank, as required by the II Proviso to Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with legal procedure. Revenue's contentions: The address used for service was the one on the petitioner's PAN and passport. The petitioner, having sold property in India, was required to update her address on the ITBA portal. The AO did not have the bank details and could not have inquired from the bank. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal. The reassessment order was passed about three years prior to the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 226(3),Section 154,Section 154(3),Section 115BBE,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 3947/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~118 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3947/2026, CM APPL. 19255/2026 & CM APPL. 19256/2026 ANURADHA DOSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Vasudevan, Mr. Tanmay Bhatnagar, Mr.Shivam Gupta & Mr. Aman Malhotra, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs and Mr.Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

19.05.

2026

1.

By way of the present petition preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 31.03.2022, passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟). The consequential demand notice, penalty order and the recovery proceedings including the attachment order dated 12.01.2026 passed under Section 226(3) of the Act of 1961 attaching the petitioner’s bank account maintained in HDFC Bank, Worli Sea Face Branch, Mumbai, are also under challenge. 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 2. The petitioner claims to have left India in 2006 to live permanently in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. According to the facts pleaded, the petitioner has been a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as „NRI‟) for the purpose of the Act of 1961 and she does not have any taxable income in India.

3.

The petitioner claims to have learnt that an assessment order has been passed against her and her bank account has been attached by the Income Tax Department only when she tried to operate her bank account maintained with the HDFC Bank, Worli Sea Face Branch, Mumbai, on 27.01.2026. 4. The petitioner thereafter opened her account on Income Tax Business Application Portal (hereinafter referred to as „ITBA portal‟) portal on 27.01.2026 and obtained a copy of the assessment order dated 21.03.2022 on the ITBA portal.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was served upon the petitioner. He argued that the address given in the assessment order is that of Inderpuri, New Delhi, at which address, the petitioner used to reside 20 years ago. He submitted that it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to have ensured service of the notice before passing the assessment order and raising the demand under the Act of 1961. 6. He further contended that the respondents had the bank details and had the Assessing Officer undertaken some trouble, he could have obtained petitioner’s address from HDFC Bank, Worli Sea Face Branch, Mumbai. He emphasized that it is the requirement of II Proviso to Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 that the notice can be served on the address given in 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 bank.

7.

Learned counsel argued that since the assessment order has been passed without serving a notice upon the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed by law, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

8.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department, on the other hand, submitted that the address given on the assessment order so also the address on which the notice was sought to be served is the one which was given on the Permanent Account Number (hereinafter referred to as „PAN‟) and the same address is given on petitioner’s passport. He submitted that the petitioner having sold a property in India, was required to file a return and get an account opened on ITBA portal along with requisite particulars including her present address. And since the same was not done, the Assessing Officer could only make an attempt to serve the notice on the available address in PAN and passport.

9.

He argued that the petitioner’s plea that the Assessing Officer ought to have inquired about the petitioner’s address from the bank is absolutely untenable inasmuch as the respondent-Assessing Officer did not have the particulars of the bank with him. He added that it was only after many efforts, as the demand was lying outstanding against the petitioner, that the Assessing Officer got information about the petitioner’s bank account and that is when, the bank account was attached after four years of the demand having been raised.

10.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department further submitted that the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.

11.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 12. So far as plea of alternative remedy raised by the Revenue is concerned, we would like to reiterate what we had observed while entertaining the writ petition and granting interim order. We adopt the same reasoning. Reproduction of the relevant part of said order dated 27.03.2026 will be apt, hence, we do so:

“5. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel on the other hand, vehemently argued that the reassessment order was passed way back on 31.03.2022. He added that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has learnt about the reassessment order on 27.01.2026 having been passed against her and yet took about two months‟ time to approach this Court, while the limitation of filing an appeal against a reassessment order is thirty days.

6.

Mr. Gupta submitted that there is a series of judgments which postulate that once the limitation for preferring an appeal has passed, no writ can be entertained.

7.

He further submitted that it is not a case warranting interference by this Court as the reassessment order had already been passed that too about three years ago.

8.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that maybe there was some non-compliance on the part of the petitioner in not filing return of income after having purchased a property in India or other provisions of law but the requirement of law is, that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem should be adhered to. Any order which has been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice can well be interfered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it impinges upon petitioner‟s rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

9.

The petitioner (an NRI woman) may or may not have taken remedies within a period of thirty days from the date of the reassessment order coming to her 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 knowledge. Because she may have had to collect the requisite documents and order(s) so also consult the counsel to file the appeal or the writ petition before this Court.

10.

We feel that from 27.01.2026 until today a period of sixty days has passed, hence the petitioner cannot be alleged to be negligent or indolent towards her rights. The case in hands is required to be dealt with and considered in its own facts, which are quite peculiar as noted hereinabove.

11.

That apart, on a look at the impugned order dated 31.03.2012 we find that initially the AO was not sure whether the petitioner has purchased or sold a property worth Rs.22,70,00,000/- and a notice under Section 148 was issued and claimed to have been sent electronically (to which the assessee did not respond). However, in para 4 of such order, he records that the petitioner had purchased property for a consideration of Rs.22,70,00,000/- in Financial Year 2016-17 (Assessment Year 2017-18). We are at a loss to understand that how a purchase consideration can be a long term capital gain? More particularly when Section 69 of the Act of 1961 is not a part of heading „E‟ of Chapter IV of the Act of 1961 and it is rather a part of Chapter VI of the Act of 1961. 12. When we were searching from the record that where this demand of Rs.39,63,37,950/- has come from, we found that vide rectification order dated 25.04.2024 passed under the Act of 1961, the initial tax demand which was Rs.11,60,28,795/- has been increased to Rs.37,87,72,200/-. We find that the same has also been raised/enhanced in total disregard of the statutory mandate under Section 154(3), as proper service of the notice issued under section 154 has not been made upon the assessee. In the absence of a validly served notice, the assessee was deprived of their fundamental right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant part of 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 rectification order (Annexure P-3) hereunder: “Considering the above facts notice u/s 154 was issued to assessee on 26.06.2023 wherein she was provided with an opportunity of being heard on or before 03.07 2023. The notice was also served through Speed Post (ED901719977IN) which was received back to this office with remarks "No Such person". In absence of any response from the assessee to rectify the said mistake which is apparent from records, a rectification order u/s 154 is being passed at the assessed income of Rs. 22,70,00,000/- out of which the amount of Rs. 17,53,57,500/- is taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 and the interest is modified accordingly. Issue necessary form””

13.

So far as service of the notice at the Inderpuri, New Delhi address of the petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that no infirmity or illegality can be alleged in the action of the Assessing Officer. An Assessing Officer can serve a notice on the address given on PAN or at the best on the address given on passport. Expecting from the Assessing Officer that he should contact the branch of the bank, with which a person is maintaining its bank account is expecting too much, that too, when the person concerned is an NRI and the bank details are not available with the Department.

14.

In relation to an NRI, the service or attempt to serve the notice on the address given at the passport, according to us, is sufficient compliance of law, in normal circumstances.

15.

Despite having observed so, we are of the view that the assessment order deserves to be set aside because in any case the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner deserves an opportunity of hearing and putting her case before 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

W.P.(C) 3947/2026 the Assessing Officer, as the fact remains that no notice was served upon her.

16.

We are, therefore, persuaded to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022, which has been passed as per the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, in absence of any reply or response by the petitioner-assessee. The impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022 is quashed & set aside and the corresponding demand notices and all the proceedings in furtherance thereof, including the penalty orders dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-4 & P-5) are also quashed and set aside.

17.

It shall be required of the Assessing Officer (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or Faceless Assessing Officer) to serve a notice upon the petitioner in accordance with law. After service of the notice, the concerned Officer shall take up the proceedings as provided in law, while observing principles of natural justice.

18.

The petitioner-assessee shall not be entitled to take a plea of such notice being time barred, as we have held the proceedings to be valid so far as service of notice is concerned.

19.

The petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 19, 2026 kk 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 21/05/2026 at 13:02:59

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →