ANUJ GHULIANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3081/2025HC DelhiDLHC01012756202511 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that any petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction is obligated to disclose all necessary facts relevant to the adjudication of the issues raised. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to disclose the earlier writ petition (W.P.(C) 2142/2025) and its dismissal as withdrawn on February 19, 2025, constituted a non-disclosure of material facts. This omission disentitles the petitioner from seeking any remedy from the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the instant writ petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed. While the Court could have imposed costs for suppression of material facts, it refrained from doing so based on the petitioner's counsel's submission that the non-disclosure was an inadvertent error.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuj Ghuliani, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 3081/2025) before the Delhi High Court challenging an income tax assessment order dated January 28, 2025. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and another. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 2142/2025) for the same assessment year without disclosing that a final assessment order had already been passed. The petitioner claimed this non-disclosure was due to lack of knowledge. The instant petition also failed to disclose the earlier writ petition or its dismissal as withdrawn by the Court on February 19, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, by failing to disclose material facts, including a previous writ petition and its dismissal, is disentitled to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel stated that the non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition and the final assessment order in the first petition was due to inadvertent error and lack of knowledge at the time of filing. Revenue's Contention: The respondents pointed out that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition for the same assessment year without disclosing the final assessment order. They also highlighted that the instant petition failed to disclose the earlier writ petition and its dismissal as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~247 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3081/2025 & CM APPL. 14610/2025, CM APPL. 14611/2025

ANUJ GHULIANI

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr.Nitin Kanwar, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

.....Respondent Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Ashvini Kr., Adv. & Mr.Rishabh Nangia, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

11.03.2025

1.

Heard Mr.Nitin Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner as also Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Sr. Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. It has been pointed out by learned counsel representing the respondents that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.(C)2142/2025 in respect of the same assessment year without disclosing therein that the final assessment order was already passed on 28.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of filing of the earlier writ petition, it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner that a final assessment order was already passed. 4. Be that as it may, now, the instant petition has been filed by the same assessee pertaining to the same assessment year with the same prayers, which were made in the earlier writ petition. Additionally, a prayer in this writ petition is also been made for quashing the final assessment order 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 18:23:50

dated 28.01.2025. However, the petitioner in this writ petition has neither made any disclosure of the earlier writ petition namely W.P.(C)2142/2025; nor any disclosure that this Court had dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn vide order dated 19.02.2025. 5. Any petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is supposed to disclose all necessary facts. He is also expected to make complete disclosure of the fact, which would be necessary for adjudication of the issue being raised in a particular petition. Non disclosure of such a fact as has been done in the instant case, disentitles the petitioner to seek any remedy from the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the instant petition along with all pending application stands dismissed. 7. Ordinarily, for suppression of material facts and incomplete disclosure of the facts, the Court could have proceeded to impose costs. However, learned counsel for the petitioner personally stated that this may have occurred on account of some inadvertent error on his part. 8. Considering the aforesaid statement, we refrain from imposing costs.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 11, 2025 sr

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 18:23:50

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →