OM PRAKASH ARORA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1) DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4106/2024HC DelhiDLHC01014110202418 September 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petitions were rendered infructuous. This was because, pursuant to the completion of the assessment under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no additions were ultimately made to the assessee's income. Consequently, the purpose for which the writ petitions were filed ceased to exist. The Court reasoned that when the underlying grievance leading to the filing of a writ petition is resolved by subsequent events, the petition itself becomes infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition seeking to challenge potential adverse outcomes in assessment proceedings becomes moot if the assessment is completed without any adverse findings or additions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions as having become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Prakash Arora, filed multiple writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging actions taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), Delhi. The petitions were filed in relation to assessments conducted under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history indicates that these writ petitions were filed and interim relief was sought. The core of the matter revolved around the assessments being carried out, with the potential for additions to income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitions are rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments in the assessment proceedings, and if so, what is the consequence for the petitions? (Question of law) The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that the writ petitions were filed to challenge the assessment proceedings. The Revenue (Respondents) did not explicitly record arguments on the issues presented in the writ petitions. However, the Court's final order indicates a resolution based on the outcome of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 4072/2024
W.P.(C) 4073/2024
W.P.(C) 4106/2024

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

$~23 to 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4072/2024 & CM APPL. 16637/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. 24. + W.P.(C) 4073/2024 & CM APPL. 16641/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. 25. + W.P.(C) 4106/2024 & CM APPL. 16725/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. 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 03/07/2025 at 08:41:09

versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. 26. + W.P.(C) 4170/2024 & CM APPL. 16995/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. 27. + W.P.(C) 4182/2024 & CM APPL. 17113/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. 28. + W.P.(C) 4183/2024 & CM APPL. 17115/2024 (stay) OM PRAKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit 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 03/07/2025 at 08:41:09

Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52(1) DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

18.09.2024 We are informed that pursuant to the completion of the Section 153 assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no additions were ultimately made. Consequently, these writ petitions are rendered infructuous. These petitions shall accordingly stand disposed of as having rendered infructuous.

YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2024/vp 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 03/07/2025 at 08:41:09

More judgments on Section 153

All 1,265 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →