BALESHWAR SHARMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRL CIRCLE-07
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the argument concerning the infraction of principles of natural justice warranted intervention in favour of the petitioner. The Court found that the entire addition made to the petitioner's income was based on the slip recovered from Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal and his statement. The opportunity provided for cross-examination was deemed insufficient and a mere 'farce or eyewash' as the petitioner could not be expected to prepare for and conduct a cross-examination of a person on the very next day. Consequently, the assessment order dated 31.03.2026 was set aside for want of an adequate opportunity of cross-examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to fix a fresh date of hearing between 18.05.2026 and 20.05.2026, provide at least 7 days' advance notice, and ensure Mr. Sehgal's availability for cross-examination. After the cross-examination, a fresh assessment order was to be passed. The Court did not dilate upon other arguments, leaving them open for the petitioner to raise before the appellate authority if an appeal is filed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Baleshwar Sharma, is challenging an assessment order dated 31.03.2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-07. The demand was raised based on a slip (Kachchi Parchi) recovered from one Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal, which recorded an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) interpreted this as Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. 1 crore) due to omitted zeroes and added the entire sum to the petitioner's income. The petitioner denied knowledge of Mr. Sehgal and the amount, stating he is not in the construction business, despite Mr. Sehgal's statement that the money was for a farmhouse. The petitioner received a notice under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 30.03.2026, requiring his appearance on 31.03.2026 for cross-examination, which he claims was insufficient time.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated 31.03.2026, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated for want of adequate opportunity for cross-examination, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: - The addition of Rs. 1 crore was based on a slip with Rs. 10,000/- written on it, which also did not correctly record the petitioner's name. - The petitioner denied knowledge of the person from whom the slip was recovered and the amount. - The notice for cross-examination was issued with insufficient time (less than 24 hours), making it an eyewash and preventing a meaningful cross-examination of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal. - The AO made the addition without proper substantiation and without allowing effective cross-examination. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioner has rushed to the High Court, bypassing the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - The arguments advanced by the petitioner involve appreciation of evidence, which the High Court cannot undertake in its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
Learned counsel contended that only on the basis of such slip, which does not even correctly record the petitioner’s name, the Assessing Officer (AO) has presumed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- written on Kachchi Parchi meant Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs.1 crore) as three zeroes were omitted. He argued that the AO has added the entire amount in petitioner’s hands even 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 04/05/2026 at 12:38:59
though in his reply and during the assessment proceedings, the petitioner denied not only the knowledge of or acquaintance with such person, but has also pleaded ignorance about the belongingness of the said amount.
It is further submitted that said Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal, in his statement has allegedly stated that he had given the said amount to the petitioner for construction of a farm house, whereas the petitioner is not at all in construction business.
Learned counsel for submitted that the petitioner was issued a notice dated 30.03.2026 under Section 131 of the Act of 1961 through email, requiring him to appear at 10:30 am on 31.03.2026 to produce evidence and cross examine said Pradeep Kumar Sehgal but this opportunity was just an eyewash inasmuch as within such short time, neither the petitioner nor his authorized representative could have mentally prepared themselves for the cross examination. He submitted that without the cross examination, the respondent has passed assessment order and inflicted a huge demand of tax which is otherwise not substantiated.
Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand argued that petitioner has rushed to this Court against an assessment order in spite of the fact that the statute provides efficacious statutory remedy in the form of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submitted that the arguments which have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are in the realm of appreciation of evidence, which this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot indulge.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that out of all the other arguments, which learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 04/05/2026 at 12:38:59
advanced, the argument in relation to infraction of principles of natural justice calls for our attention and intervention in petitioner’s favour.
Since the edifice of the entire addition made in petitioner’s hands is, the slip, which was recovered during the search of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal, the petitioner ought to have been provided an opportunity of cross examination. On perusal of the proceedings, we find that such opportunity was only a farce or eyewash. An assessee or his representative cannot be expected to come on the very next day at 10:30 am to cross examine a person, who is not a formal witness for obvious reasons, the petitioner could not cross examine said Pradeep Kumar Sehgal and resultantly the AO has taken the slip and his statement to be a gospel truth, which is to the detriment of petitioner’s right.
We, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 31.03.2026, which essentially hinges upon the seized document (Kachchi Parchi) and the statement of the said Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sehgal for want of opportunity of cross examination. Because, since the entire addition is edified on the statement and slip recovered from Pradeep Kumar Sehgal.
The AO shall fix any date of hearing between 18.05.2026 to 20.05.2026 and inform the petitioner at least 7 days in advance and provide an opportunity to cross-examine Pradeep Kumar Sehgal. It shall be incumbent upon the AO to ensure that said Pradeep Kumar is available for cross-examination at the time of hearing so fixed and after the cross- examination being so done, the AO shall pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law, giving due regard to the cross-examination.
Apart from the principles of natural justice, we have not dilated upon any of the arguments advances by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner 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 04/05/2026 at 12:38:59
shall be free to raise all other arguments before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, if he is required to file an appeal.
The writ petition along with the pending application is disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 30, 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 04/05/2026 at 12:38:59
More judgments on Section 131
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nimit Agrawal, Raipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, RaipurITA 622/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nimit Agrawal, Raipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, RaipurITA 621/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026