SANJAY KUMAR PAHUJA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 60(1) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3621/2026HC DelhiDLHC01010708202620 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the exercise sought by the petitioner, which involved scrutinizing the jurisdictional facts of the reassessment proceedings, could not be undertaken in its writ jurisdiction. This was particularly the case given that the notice was issued on 09.08.2024, the petitioner's objection was rejected on 26.08.2024, and the petitioner approached the Court after an inordinate delay of over 18 months. The Court also noted that the petition was filed on the verge of the limitation period for passing an assessment order expiring on 31.03.2026. The Court found that the case did not warrant interference at such a late stage. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Pahuja, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), Delhi. The challenge was based on a notice dated 09.08.2024, which the petitioner argued was fundamentally void and without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the notice alleged 'sale and purchase' without specifying whether the assessee had purchased or sold goods to Sangam Sales. The petitioner's objection to the notice was rejected on 26.08.2024. The petitioner approached the High Court after more than 18 months, when the limitation for passing an assessment order was nearing its expiry on 31.03.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 09.08.2024 are void and without jurisdiction due to the alleged absence of jurisdictional facts, specifically the ambiguity regarding whether the assessee engaged in the purchase or sale of goods with Sangam Sales, as argued by the petitioner? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings). Contentions: Assessee: The notice and reassessment proceedings are fundamentally void and without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to assert whether the assessee had purchased or sold goods to Sangam Sales, indicating an absence of jurisdictional facts. The petitioner relied on various documents to support this assertion. Revenue: No specific contentions for the revenue are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the petitioner's argument on jurisdictional facts.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3621/2026 CM APPL. 17534/2026 CM APPL. 17535/2026 SANJAY KUMAR PAHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Mr. Dushyant Nayak, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Mr. Shivam Jain and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 60(1) DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Mr. Himanshu Gaur and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

20.03.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged re- assessment proceedings initiated against him by way of notice dated 09.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice and proceedings are fundamentally void and without jurisdiction inasmuch as while issuing the notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has alleged bogus ‘sale and purchase’ without asserting whether the assessee had purchased or sold goods to the Sangam Sales. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner took half an hour for taking the Court through various documents just to assert that there is absence of 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 25/03/2026 at 13:18:27

jurisdictional facts. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that such an exercise sought to be conducted by the petitioner cannot be undertaken in our writ jurisdiction that too when the notice was issued way back on 09.08.2024 and the petitioner’s objection had been rejected on 26.08.2024. 4. In any case, the petitioner has taken more than 18 months in approaching the Court that too on the verge of completion of the limitation for passing an assessment order, which is going to expire on 31.03.2026. 5. It is not a case warranting our interference at least in the eleventh hour. We, therefore, dismissed the petition. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MARCH 20, 2026/cd 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 25/03/2026 at 13:18:27

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →