LALITA AGGARWAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23, N.DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5106/2023HC DelhiDLHC01014622202321 April 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the respondent no. 1, the concerned officer, to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of the order. This decision is to be made in accordance with the applicable rules, with specific reference to Rule 10(1) of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the event that the representation has already been decided, the court directed that the order passed on such representation must be communicated to the petitioner within the same one-week period. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. The court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lalita Aggarwal, had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 3028/2020) before the Delhi High Court, which resulted in an order on July 15, 2020. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a representation on July 31, 2020, to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-23, New Delhi (respondent no. 1), requesting the de-attachment of her Public Provident Fund (PPF) account. The petitioner contended that no decision had been taken on this representation, despite the court's earlier direction for expeditious disposal. The present writ petition (W.P.(C) 5106/2023) was filed seeking a direction for the decision on the pending representation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent no. 1 is obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated July 31, 2020, for de-attachment of her PPF account, in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) 3028/2020 and applicable rules, specifically Rule 10(1) of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that no decision has been taken on her representation for de-attachment of her PPF account, despite the High Court's prior order directing expeditious disposal. The petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court on July 15, 2020, in W.P.(C) 3028/2020. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-23, N. Delhi & Anr.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 10(1) of Schedule II, Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5106/2023 & CM APPL. 19993/2023 LALITA AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23, N. DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Shlok Chandra, Adv. for Income Tax Department. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R %

21.04.2023 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2020 in W.P.(C) 3028/2020, a representation dated 31.07.2020 was made to the respondent no. 1 / concerned officer for de-attachment of the PPF account. 2. He submits that no decision has been taken on the said representation despite the fact that the Hon’ble Court had directed the respondent to decide the representation expeditiously. 3. Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels it apposite to direct the respondent no. 1 / the concerned officer to decide the representation given by the petitioner within a period of one week from today in accordance with the applicable rules, more particularly, Rule 10(1) of Schedule II, Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 09/06/2026 at 16:09:46

case not already decided. If the representation has already been decided, it is directed that the order passed on such representation be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. POONAM A. BAMBA, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 21, 2023 ‘SK’ 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 09/06/2026 at 16:09:46

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →