JITINDER SINGH CHADHA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, DD/ADIT (INV) 3 (1-) FAIU AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16828/2025HC DelhiDLHC01086174202510 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV3 pages
AI SummaryDisposed of

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court noted the submissions of both parties. The Income Tax Department contended that a Look Out Circular (LOC) existed against the petitioners. However, the Bureau of Immigration unequivocally stated that there were no restrictive actions or travel restrictions against the petitioners. The Court took note of this position, particularly the stand of the Bureau of Immigration. Since the Bureau of Immigration confirmed the absence of any travel restrictions, the Court concluded that there was no impediment to the petitioners' travel. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of at this stage. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law if they had any further grievances.

What were the facts?

These three writ petitions (W.P.(C) 16828/2025, W.P.(C) 16833/2025, and W.P.(C) 16834/2025) were filed by Jitinder Singh Chadha, Ajit Singh Chadha, and Rita Ajit Singh respectively. The petitioners sought relief concerning a Look Out Circular (LOC) allegedly issued against them. The respondents included the Deputy Director, Income Tax, Investigation, and the Bureau of Immigration. The core of the dispute revolved around the existence and impact of this LOC on the petitioners' travel. The petitions were listed before the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a Look Out Circular (LOC) exists against the petitioners, and if so, what is its legal standing and impact on their travel rights? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the existence and effect of an administrative action). Assessee's Contention: While not explicitly detailed in the provided text, the filing of the writ petitions implies the petitioners were aggrieved by the existence or potential impact of an LOC, seeking its quashing or clarification. Revenue's Contention: The Income Tax Department (respondent no. 1) submitted that an LOC exists against the petitioners. The Bureau of Immigration (respondent no. 2) stated that there is no restrictive action or travel restriction against the petitioners.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 16828/2025
W.P.(C) 16833/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~74, 75 and 76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16828/2025 and CM APPL. 69162/2025, CM APPL. 69163/2025, CM APPL. 5823/2026 JITINDER SINGH CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Tanmaya Mehta, Mr Karan Nagrath, Ms Nupur Kumar, Mr Ambuj Tiwari, Mr Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, DD/ADIT (INV) 3 (1-) FAIU AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Gaurav Kumar Arya, Pushpag Shah Johari, Advs for R-1. Mr.P.S.Singh, C.G.S.C. with Ms.Prachi, Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Sarvesh P Shrivastava,GP for UOI 75 + W.P.(C) 16833/2025 and CM APPL. 69179/2025, CM APPL. 8441/2026 AJIT SINGH CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Tanmaya Mehta, Mr Karan Nagrath, Ms Nupur Kumar, Mr 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 13/02/2026 at 11:12:13

Ambuj Tiwari, Mr Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Gaurav Kumar Arya, Pushpag Shah Johari, Advs for R-1. Mr.P.S.Singh, C.G.S.C. with Ms.Prachi, Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocates. 76 + W.P.(C) 16834/2025 and CM APPL. 69182/2025 RITA AJIT SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr Tanmaya Mehta, Mr Karan Nagrath, Ms Nupur Kumar, Mr Ambuj Tiwari, Mr Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, DD/ADIT (INV) 3 (1) FAIU AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Ms. 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 13/02/2026 at 11:12:13

Muskaan Goel, Gaurav Kumar Arya, Pushpag Shah Johari, Advs for R-1. Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, (CGSC) and ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Advocates for UOI. for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R %

10.02.2026 1. Though Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the respondent- Income Tax Department submits that as per the Income Tax Department, there exists Look Out Circular (‘LOC’). However, it is an unequivocal stand, which has been taken by respondent no.2- Bureau of Immigration, that there is no restrictive action or travel restriction against the petitioner. 2. The aforesaid position has been taken note of by the Court in its orders dated 21.11.2025 passed in the afore-captioned petitions. 3. In view thereof, since there exists no restriction with respect to the travel of the petitioners, therefore, the instant petitions, at this stage, stand disposed of. 4. If the petitioners have any further grievance, they shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 10, 2026 aks/ap 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 13/02/2026 at 11:12:13

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →