RETRO MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing despite a specific request. The respondents failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that a notice for personal hearing was sent to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.06.2026, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notice under Section 148 dated 29.06.2026, were set aside for violating the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a date for personal hearing with at least seven days' prior notice and then pass an order in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the petitioner's case, and the AO was free to take an independent view. The ratio decidendi is that a failure to provide a specifically requested personal hearing, without proof of issuance of notice for such hearing, vitiates the assessment order on grounds of breach of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Retro Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.06.2026. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing, despite a specific request made in response to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(1) dated 30.03.2026. The petitioner argued that while the AO acknowledged the request in the impugned order, it falsely stated that a notice was issued and the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner asserted they never received any such notice. The Revenue, through its counsel, claimed a notice was issued for 29.06.2026, but the petitioner did not appear or seek adjournment, leading the AO to pass the order due to impending limitation under Section 148A(3).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated 29.06.2026, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, as required by law and specifically requested by the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner specifically requested a personal hearing in its reply to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(1). - The impugned assessment order falsely stated that a notice for personal hearing was issued and the petitioner failed to appear. - The petitioner never received any notice or intimation for a personal hearing on 29.06.2026, either via email or on the portal. - The impugned order is contrary to the record and violates principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: - A notice to appear on 29.06.2026 was issued to the petitioner. - The petitioner neither appeared nor requested an adjournment. - The Assessing Officer passed the order as the limitation period under Section 148A(3) was expiring.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~15 & 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010479282026 + W.P.(C) 14725/2026 & CM APPL. 68904/2026
# CNR No. DLHC010479312026 + W.P.(C) 14727/2026 & CM APPL. 68909/2026
RETRO MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Shukla, Advocate.
versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Mr. Pratyuksh Gupta, JSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
O R D E R %
29.10.2026 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 29.06.2026 on the ground of the same being contrary to principles of natural justice. The ground which the petitioner has taken for challenging the impugned order is that the Assessing Officer did not allow the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, though it was specifically asked by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received a show-cause notice under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) dated 30.03.2026. In furtherance whereof, the petitioner filed a reply dated 11.04.2026 and requested for personal hearing. 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 31/10/2026 at 12:06:52
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in para no.4 of the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has expressly recorded such request of the petitioner but had not issued any notice to appear and had passed the impugned order on 29.06.2026, simply observing that such notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to appear, despite due intimation. 4. Learned counsel asserted that the petitioner never received any notice or intimation to appear on 29.06.2026 and submitted that the impugned order is therefore, clearly contrary to the record. He submitted that neither on the petitioner’s registered e-mail ID nor on the portal, there is any indication of any notice issued to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mann, learned junior standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a notice to appear on 29.06.026 was issued to the petitioner, but neither did the petitioner appear nor did he make any request for adjournment, and thus, the Assessing Officer had passed the impugned order as the limitation to pass the order under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 was expiring. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The respondents, despite having been given opportunity, have not placed on record any evidence to show that the notice was sent to 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 31/10/2026 at 12:06:52
Be that as it may, we are satisfied from a perusal of the record that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing in spite of the specific request so made by the petitioner. The order impugned, therefore, suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 so also the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 dated 29.06.2026. The Assessing Officer shall give a date of personal hearing and at least seven days’ prior notice and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. 10. Needless to state that we have not made any observation on merit or otherwise of petitioner’s case, and therefore, the Assessing Officer shall be free to take an independent view of the matter on the basis of the submissions put forth by the assessee. 11. Petition stands allowed accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. OCTOBER 29, 2026/ck 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 31/10/2026 at 12:06:52
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026