HARSHI UPPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4071/2025HC DelhiDLHC01017293202516 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in Global Vectra Helicorp Limited v. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The Revenue, on instructions, conceded that the impugned order should be set aside and a fresh order passed after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order dated 10.03.2025 and directed the concerned unit to pass a fresh order within sixty days from the date of the order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harshi Uppal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated 10.03.2025. This order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, stated that the impugned order could be set aside and a fresh order passed after hearing the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.03.2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2023-24, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Act). Assessee's contention: The assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, on instructions, agreed that the impugned order may be set aside and a fresh order passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4071/2025 & CM APPL. 18918/2025 HARSHI UPPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sanat Kapoor and Mr Sahil Kumar, Advocates. versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms Naincy Jain and Ms Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr Ujjwal Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 16.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the assessment order dated 10.03.2025 [impugned order] passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2023-24. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 3. The issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in Global Vectra Helicorp Limited v. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC :3303-DB. 4. Mr Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that the impugned order may be set aside and the concerned unit shall pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to 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 01/07/2025 at 21:18:16

the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The concerned unit may pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within the period of sixty days from date. 6. The petition is disposed of in abovesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 16, 2025 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 21:18:16

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →