INTUITIVE ALPHA INVESTMENT FUND PCC-CELL 1 vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5426/2025HC DelhiDLHC01024210202528 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, in view of the submissions made, particularly the concession by the Revenue's counsel, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice dated March 27, 2025, within a period of one week from the date of the order. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the petitioner's reply and pass an appropriate assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court reserved all contentions of the parties. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Intuitive Alpha Investment Fund PCC-Cell 1, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a draft assessment order dated March 31, 2025. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Specifically, a show-cause notice (SCN) dated March 27, 2025, was issued at 9:42 PM with a reply deadline of 5:00 PM on March 29, 2025. The petitioner argued that March 29, 2025, was a Saturday and a weekly off in both Mauritius and India, providing insufficient time to respond. Despite filing a response without professional assistance due to the short notice, it was not considered. The petitioner also claimed that an opportunity for a hearing was denied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the draft assessment order dated March 31, 2025, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice dated March 27, 2025? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the adequacy of notice and opportunity under general principles of natural justice). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was issued with an unreasonably short response time, falling on a weekend, thus denying a real opportunity to respond. The petitioner also contended that their filed response was not considered and that an opportunity for a hearing was not granted. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider afresh.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5426/2025 and CM APPLs. 24733-34/2025 INTUITIVE ALPHA INVESTMENT FUND PCC-CELL 1 .....Petitioner Through: Mr Prakash Sinha with Ms Kinjal Bhutta, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms Naincy Jain, Ms Madhavi Shukla and Mr Ujjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 28.04.2025 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a draft assessment order dated 31.03.2025 [impugned order] on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that it was not afforded any real opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice on the basis of which the impugned order is premised. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2025 [SCN] was issued by the Assessing Officer [AO] at 09.42 P.M. with a direction to file their reply to the same by 05.00 P.M. on 29.03.2025. The petitioner submits that 29.03.2025 was a Saturday and a weekly of in 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 19:33:51

Mauritius as well as in India. Thus, the petitioner did not have a sufficient time to respond. Notwithstanding to the same, the petitioner did file a response without any assistance from professionals on account of short notice. However, the said response was also not considered. 4. It is further stated that although the petitioner sought an opportunity for being heard, the same was also not afforded to the petitioner. 5. Mr Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the matter be remanded to the AO to consider afresh. 6. In view of the above, the petitioner is granted yet another opportunity to respond to the SCN dated 27.03.2025 within a period of one week from the date. The learned AO shall consider the said reply and pass an appropriate assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications are also disposed of. 8. All contentions of the parties are reserved. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 28, 2025/tr 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 19:33:51

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →