DINESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

$~116 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010349802026 + W.P.(C) 10871/2026 DINESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC along with Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta and Mr. Anant Mann, JSCs for IT Dept. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 03.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the notices dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) and 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), to be illegal and time-barred. 2. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), the notice dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) and the notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) are time-barred, as no notice can be issued after period of six years as has been held by this Court in catena of decisions. 3. Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that the petition is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has challenged the notices imposing penalty, while 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 07/08/2026 at 12:00:43

highlighting that the petitioner is a non-filer – he has not filed return. 4. He further submitted that a huge demand has been raised against the petitioner, which can be discerned from the demand notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5). He pointed out that by way of the assessment order dated 14.11.2019, passed under Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), a demand of Rs.21,92,090/- was raised and by way of order dated 22.02.2022, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, to the tune of Rs.7,85,684/-, had been imposed for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. He submitted that, so far as limitation of six years is concerned, the same is applicable only for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 regarding escaped income, and the assessment order dated 14.11.2019 which has been mentioned in the notice dated 16.07.2026 seems to have been passed well within the limitation period. He nevertheless argued that the assessee has not even placed the abovementioned assessment order or the penalty order on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner’s contention that the notices (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-5) are time-barred is totally misconceived and untenable. The notices cannot be said to be time-barred, more particularly, when the same relate to recovery of demand or asking the petitioner to deposit the outstanding demand. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that, by way of notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has called upon the petitioner to deposit the outstanding demand raised by the assessment order dated 14.11.2019 and the penalty order dated 22.02.2022. Surprisingly enough, upon receipt of the demand notice, 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 07/08/2026 at 12:00:43

petitioner proceeded to file a response by way of his representation dated 21.07.2026 and in that also, he has raised objection regarding the notice being time-barred but did not assert that he has not received any copy of the assessment order mentioned in the notice of demand dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5). Though the notice dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) is not under challenge but even assuming the notice was under challenge, the same would not be time-barred. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that order(s) have already been passed against the petitioner, we find the petitioner’s plea to be wholly untenable and misconceived. The petition therefore, stands dismissed. 9. In case, the petitioner has not been served with the copies of the assessment order dated 14.11.2019 and penalty order dated 22.02.2022, as mentioned in the notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), he shall be free to apply for copies thereof from the AO. On receipt of the copies of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner shall be free to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law, with an application seeking condonation of delay and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 3, 2026/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 07/08/2026 at 12:00:43