HARMINDER SINGH CHADHA vs. PCIT DELHI 4 AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4113/2026HC DelhiDLHC01012596202609 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, while acknowledging that it would not usually direct the Appellate Authority to decide appeals on priority, made an exception due to the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts and the substantial demand raised against him (approximately 30 times the returned income). The Court observed that upon reviewing the assessment order, there appeared to be "certain grey areas" that might warrant interference by the Appellate Authority. Taking inspiration from the Ministry of Finance's office memorandum dated 19.03.2024, which prioritizes appeals with demands of Rs. 1 crore or more, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal on priority. The Appellate Authority was given a specific timeframe of two months from the date of the order to decide the appeal. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harminder Singh Chadha, challenged an order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) had raised a high-pitched demand of Rs. 10.49 crores for Assessment Year 2012-13, significantly higher than the initial assessment of Rs. 32.63 lakhs. An appeal against the AO's order dated 30.12.2019 was filed on 28.01.2020, but it remained unheard. Meanwhile, coercive actions, including the attachment of bank accounts, were initiated. The impugned order disposing of the stay application allegedly failed to consider the prima-facie case and financial hardship.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in disposing of the stay application without considering the prima-facie case and financial hardship of the petitioner, leading to the rejection of interim relief? 2. Whether the high-pitched demand of Rs. 10.49 crores raised by the AO for AY 2012-13, which is substantially higher than the initial assessment, warrants interference and expeditious disposal of the pending appeal? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the prima-facie case and financial hardship while disposing of the stay application. The petitioner also contended that the demand of Rs. 10.49 crores is excessive, especially considering the initial assessment of Rs. 32.63 lakhs, and that even 20% of the demand is unaffordable. The petitioner highlighted that their bank accounts have been attached, and coercive action is being taken while the appeal is pending. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, brought to the Court's notice an office memorandum dated 19.03.2024, which mandates priority disposal of appeals with demands of Rs. 1 crore or more. The revenue assured that the petitioner's appeal would be given priority as per this circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4113/2026 CM APPL. 20098/2026 CM APPL. 20099/2026

HARMINDER SINGH CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Shubham Gupta and Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advs.

versus

PCIT DELHI 4 AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Viplav Acharya JSCs and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

09.04.2026 O R D E R 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Authority’) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) has raised a high pitched demand against the petitioner for Assessment Year 2012-13 by way of the order dated 30.12.2019, though an assessment was made on 02.03.2015 under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 for the said assessment year. 3. While informing that the petitioner-assessee has already preferred an 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 13/04/2026 at 12:44:29

appeal against an order dated 30.12.2019 before the Appellate Authority way-back on 28.01.2020 learned counsel raised a grievance that on the one hand the appeal is not being heard and on the other hand, the respondents have initiated coercive action against the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel also argued that while disposing of the stay application by the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, the Authority has not considered the first and foremost constituent or point of determination for grant of interim relief, viz prima-facie case and has non-suited the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not provided cogent evidence of financial hardship being faced by him. 5. Learned counsel further pointed that a huge demand of Rs.10.49 crores has been raised against the petitioner and contended that given the quantum of business and the fact that initial assessment of the petitioner under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 was made at Rs. 32.63 lakhs, even 20% of the demand is too high to be deposited by the petitioner. 6. In usual circumstance, we would not issue any direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on priority basis, but since the petitioner’s bank accounts have been attached and a substantial demand has been raised against the petitioner (at least 30 times the returned income) and also because on going through the impugned assessment order, we find that there are certain grey areas, where interference may be warranted by the Appellate Authority, we would grant a rather small indulgence of issuing direction of expeditious disposal. 7. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents brought to our notice, an office memorandum dated 19.03.2024 issued by Ministry of Finance, according to which, the appeals having 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 13/04/2026 at 12:44:29

demand of Rs.1 crore or more are to be taken on priority basis and assured that the petitioner’s appeal would be given priority as per this circular. 8. In view of what we have noted hereinabove and taking clue from the spirit of the memorandum dated 19.03.2024, we hereby direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on priority basis, as the petitioner’s bank accounts have been attached and a substantial demand has been raised against the petitioner. 9. We hereby direct that the Appellant Authority shall decide petitioner’s appeal within a period of two months from today. 10. The writ petition along with pending applications stands dispose of, accordingly.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 9, 2026/dd 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 13/04/2026 at 12:44:29

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →