NEMI CHAND JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4226/2026HC DelhiDLHC01012860202601 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court observed that the petitioner had not provided any assertion to demonstrate that the transactions did not belong to him. Additionally, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the actions of the respondent-Assessing Officer. The presence of an assessment order, even if not explicitly detailed in the judgment, was noted as a factor against interference. The Court concluded that the petition was misconceived and dismissed it along with pending applications. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum to challenge assessment proceedings when the assessee fails to establish lack of jurisdiction or to prove that the transactions are not theirs, especially when an assessment order appears to have been passed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nemi Chand Jain, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner stated that he surrendered his Value Added Tax (VAT) registration on July 9, 2012, and subsequently closed his business. He alleged that his Permanent Account Number (PAN) was misused for business transactions. The petitioner placed on record an order dated August 30, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, no final assessment order under Section 148 was filed. A notice dated March 7, 2026, proposing to levy penalty was also on record, which is typically issued after a demand is raised and assessment proceedings are finalized. The court noted that the documents presented by the petitioner were complaints, not replies.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business transactions in question do not belong to him, and if the Assessing Officer committed any jurisdictional error in proceeding against him, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's primary contention is that his PAN was misused after he had closed his business and surrendered his VAT registration. He claims he is not responsible for the transactions carried out in his name. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the petitioner had not provided any assertion to show that the transactions did not belong to him. Furthermore, the revenue contended that no jurisdictional error was found in the proceedings. The revenue also noted that an assessment order appeared to have been passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4226/2026, CM APPLs. 20594/2026 & 20595/2026

NEMI CHAND JAIN

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Rana, Mr. Aditya Choudhary, Mr. Himanshu Rohilla, Ms. Ambika Gupta, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Mr. V.K. Saksena, Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSCs, Mr. Saurabh, Mr. Abhay, Advs. for R-1 & R-2.

Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

01.04.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent-Assessing Officer on the ground that though on 09.07.2012, he had surrendered his Value Added Tax (VAT) registration and thereafter closed his business, yet someone has misused his Permanent Account Number and carried out business transactions in his name. 2. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-1 i.e., copy of order dated 30.08.2024 being an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „The Act of 1961‟). However, no final assessment order under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has been placed on record, whereas Annexure P-2 is copy of the notice dated 07.03.2026 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 06/04/2026 at 11:03:53

proposing to levy penalty against the petitioner has been filed, which is issued once a demand has been raised and assessment proceedings have been finalised. 3. Whatever documents learned counsel for the petitioner had taken us through are complaints and not his reply. 4. We neither find any assertion on the part of the petitioner to show that the transactions do not belong to him nor do we find any jurisdiction error. 5. That apart, an assessment order seems to have been passed. We, therefore, do not find any case warranting interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition, being misconceived, is hereby dismissed alongwith pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 1, 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 06/04/2026 at 11:03:53

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →