NIRAJ KUMAR vs. THE ASSESSING UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14089/2026HC DelhiDLHC01045814202603 November 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated 22.02.2026. The Court found that the order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and without considering the petitioner's reply. The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, made a fair offer: if the Court was persuaded to set aside the assessment order, the petitioner's reply dated 25.02.2026 would be considered, and if the petitioner requested a personal hearing, it would be granted. Based on this fair stand, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to take the petitioner's reply dated 25.02.2026 on record, intimate a hearing date, provide a VC link, and grant an opportunity for hearing. A fresh order was to be passed in accordance with law, considering the petitioner's reply and oral submissions, without being influenced by the previous order. Consequently, subsequent demand and penalty notices dated 12.05.2026 were also set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, challenged an assessment order dated 22.02.2026, passed by the Assessing Unit, Income Tax Department, alleging a violation of natural justice. The petitioner contended that a significant demand was raised without objectively considering his reply. The revenue argued that the petitioner's reply, dated 25.02.2026, was filed after the assessment order was passed on 22.02.2026. The petitioner countered that he attempted to upload the reply but faced technical difficulties, and the assessment order was not reflected on the portal even by 25.02.2026. The High Court had previously granted interim relief by staying coercive action for recovery of the demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.02.2026 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's reply dated 25.02.2026 could have been considered by the Assessing Officer when it was allegedly filed after the assessment order dated 22.02.2026 was passed, as argued by the revenue? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in flagrant violation of natural justice as his reply was not considered. He contended that if his reply, furnished on 25.02.2026, had been objectively considered, the demand raised would not have been made. He also claimed to have faced technical issues in uploading the reply and that the assessment order was not even visible on the portal by 25.02.2026. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the reply dated 25.02.2026 was filed after the assessment order dated 22.02.2026 was passed, thus it could not have been ignored or failed to be considered by the Assessing Officer.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010458142026 + W.P.(C) 14089/2026, CM APPL. 65947/2026 & CM APPL. 65948/2026

NIRAJ KUMAR

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Ruchika Darira & Mr.Satendra Kumar Rai, Advs.

versus

THE ASSESSING UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Ms. Priya Sarkar & Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

03.11.2026

1.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 22.02.2026, alleging it to have been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. On the previous date of hearing i.e. 08.10.2026, we had passed the following order: “1. Ms. Ruchika Darira, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the order impugned has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as a huge demand has been raised without considering petitioner's reply in 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 06/11/2026 at 12:35:00

its true perspective. She contended that if the reply which the petitioner-assessee had furnished on 25.02.2026 was objectively considered by the Assessing Officer, the demand which has been raised against the petitioner could not have been raised. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the reply (dated 25.02.2026) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was filed after passing of the impugned assessment order, which was passed on 22.02.2026 and therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has in any manner ignored or failed to consider petitioner's reply. 3. In response to the submissions so made, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner has pleaded that he tried to upload the reply but could not do the same. She contended that and even the assessment order which is claimed to have been passed on 22.02.2026 were not reflected on the portal by 25.02.2026, when the petitioner had uploaded the reply, as can be discerned from the screenshot (annexure P-10), 4. Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel, prays for and is granted two weeks' time to complete instructions. 5. List this case on 02.11.2026. 6. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the demand pursuant to the assessment order dated 22.02.2026.” 3. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that he had discussed the issue with the Assessing Officer and he has instructions 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 06/11/2026 at 12:35:00

to state before the Court that in case the Court feels persuaded to set aside the assessment order, the petitioner’s reply which was filed on 25.02.2026 shall be considered and if the petitioner will pray for an opportunity for personal hearing, the same shall be given. 4. In view of the fair stand taken by the respondents, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned assessment order dated 22.02.2026 is quashed and set aside, having been passed in breach of principles of natural justice and without considering the petitioner’s reply. 5. The Assessing Officer shall take the petitioner’s reply dated 25.02.2026 on record and intimate a date of hearing to the petitioner and send a VC link to the petitioner. The AO shall provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, obviously after considering petitioner’s reply and oral submissions made during the course of hearing, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the previous assessment order. 6. As a natural concomitant of the impugned assessment order dated 22.02.2026 being set aside, subsequent demand notices and penalty notice dated 12.05.2026 are also set aside. 7. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. NOVEMBER 3, 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 06/11/2026 at 12:35:00

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →