AMIT JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-54(1) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7993/2023HC DelhiDLHC01022647202307 April 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside the assessment order dated May 21, 2023. The Court found that the assessment order appeared to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was passed without considering the assessee's reply or viewpoint. While the assessment order recorded that an adjournment request was made, the petitioner denied this, and no evidence was placed on record by the revenue to substantiate that an adjournment was prayed for. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court set aside the order. The Faceless Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law, provide sufficient opportunity, including filing of reply/written submissions and a personal hearing if opted for, before passing a fresh order. The assessment proceedings were to be completed on or before November 30, 2026. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Jain, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated May 21, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(1), Delhi, under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing him with adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. He claimed that a notice for proposed variation was issued on May 13, 2023, requiring a response by May 16, 2023, and that an adjournment application uploaded on May 15, 2023, was not considered. The revenue, through its counsel, stated it would obtain instructions on whether the adjournment request was dealt with by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated May 21, 2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice due to inadequate opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that there was a breach of principles of natural justice as he was not granted adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. - It was further argued that the Assessing Officer should have decided the adjournment request made by the petitioner. - The petitioner denied that an adjournment request was made, and the revenue filed a counter-affidavit but placed no evidence on record to show that an adjournment was prayed for by the petitioner. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's counsel stated that instructions would be obtained as to whether the adjournment request made by the petitioner was dealt with by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7993/2023 & CM APPL. 30746/2023 AMIT JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Chaudhary, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-54(1) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal & Ms. Sawiksha, Advs. for R1 & 2. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms.Goraang Ranjan, JSC, Ms. Sakshi & Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

07.04.

2026

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent-Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on 21.05.2023 under Section 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing proper opportunity of hearing to him.

2.

On the first date of hearing i.e., 01.06.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had recorded thus:

“2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 3. The petitioner seeks to assail assessment order dated 21.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] passed by respondent no.1. 3.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the demand 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 13/04/2026 at 12:23:52

notice of even date i.e., 21.05.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner says that a notice was issued for proposed variation on 13.05.2023. It is pointed out that the petitioner was called upon to file a response by 16.05.2023, 1700 Hrs.

4.

1 Counsel for the petitioner says that an application for adjournment was made and uploaded on 15.05.2023. 4.2 The reason given in the application, according to the counsel for the petitioner, was that he required time to gather the relevant material. For this purpose, our attention is drawn to Annexure P-10 appended on page 87 of the case file.

5.

In sum, it is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as adequate opportunity was not granted to respond to the show-cause notice.

5.

1 Furthermore, the argument is that, in any case, the Assessing Officer (AO) should have rendered a decision on the request for adjournment made by the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, issue notice.

6.

1 Mr Kunal Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

7.

Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that he will obtain instructions as to whether or not the request for adjournment made by the petitioner was dealt with by the AO.

7.

1 In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, a counteraffidavit will be filed at least five days before the next date of hearing.

8.

List the matter on 25.08.2023. 9. In the meanwhile, no precipitate action would be taken against the petitioner, till further directions of the court.

10.

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy 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 13/04/2026 at 12:23:52

of the order.”

3.

Though the assessment order records that an adjournment request was made by the assessee, which the petitioner specifically denied and a counter affidavit has been filed but no evidence evincing that the adjournment was prayed for by the petitioner is placed on record.

4.

Without going into the counter allegations & assertions, in light of the fact that the assessment order has been passed without considering reply/view point of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we are persuaded to set aside the assessment order, which appears to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

5.

The assessment order dated 21.05.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

6.

The Faceless Assessing Officer to whom the case is assigned shall issue a notice to the petitioner in accordance with law, whereafter, he shall provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, including filing of reply/written submissions. In case opted, personal hearing shall also be provided before passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The Faceless Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment proceedings on or before 30.11.2026. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 7, 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 13/04/2026 at 12:23:52

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →