Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/7219/2024 of NAF INDIA HOLDINGS LTD Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010300852024 + W.P.(C) 7219/2024, CM APPL. 30094/2024 NAF INDIA HOLDINGS LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saket Shukla, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Vishesh Minocha & Mr. Uddav Khanna, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent
$~17
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010300852024
+
W.P.(C) 7219/2024, CM APPL. 30094/2024
NAF INDIA HOLDINGS LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Saket Shukla, Ms. Bani Dikshit,
Mr. Vishesh Minocha & Mr. Uddav
Khanna, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr.
Ashwini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh
Nangia, JSCs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
29.09.2026
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the initial notice dated 15.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), so also the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148A(d) on 31.03.2024 and consequential notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
2. While maintaining that the proceedings have been initiated without there being any jurisdiction and justification for the same, learned counsel submitted that the AO has proceeded arbitrarily and in spite of the fact that a reply was filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2024, he has recorded that no reply has been filed and passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 and has decided to proceed against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
3. Learned counsel submitted that had the AO considered petitioner’s reply, he would have perhaps taken correct view of the matter and would have agreed with petitioner’s contentions and drop the proceedings. But the AO has intentionally recorded that no reply was filed by the petitioner, so as to proceed against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel could not dispute the position that the reply was filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2024, as asserted by the petitioner.
5. Since the factum of the reply having been filed remains undisputed and there is no discussion of the reply, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 deciding petitioner’s objection is an order passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. The same is liable to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.
6. The fact that the petitioner had filed reply can be discerned from para no.4 of the impugned order dated 31.03.2024, inasmuch as the AO had recorded that the assessee had furnished the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and Foreign Portfolio Certificate (FPI) issued by SEBI.
7. In para no.4 of the impugned order the AO had further observed that the assessee had not provided source of investment and receipt/document along with the bank statement of receipt of foreign remittance, which clearly suggests that the assessee had taken part in the proceedings and had filed a reply and documents.
8. On perusal of the reply and pleas taken by the petitioner, we find that there are substantial grounds which the petitioner had taken and if the same were considered objectively and in accordance with law, the view which the AO has taken could have been different than the one, which he has taken.
9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the AO under Section 148A(d) and consequential notice of even date, issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
10. While doing so, we make it clear that we have not pronounced upon merits or otherwise of the contentions of the petitioner. The AO shall, therefore, be free to take an independent view of the petitioner’s plea and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
11. The AO shall fix a date of hearing and intimate the same to the petitioner on its registered e-mail ID. On receipt of the date of hearing, the petitioner shall be allowed to file additional reply/submissions including documents, whereafter the AO shall fix a date providing personal hearing.
12. The counsel/authorised representative of the petitioner shall appear before the AO and represent its case, whereafter the AO shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law before 31.12.2026.
13. Petitioner’s right to take up remedies against such order shall stand reserved.
14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
15. Pending application(s) stand(s) disposed of.
16. The approving authority for the fresh proceedings to be conducted shall remain the same, as was competent and had granted approval at the time of passing the original order dated 31.03.2024. DINESH MEHTA, J. ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/sid