Delhi High Court Quashes IT Order After Dept. Failed To Intimate Decision On Taxpayer's Adjournment Request

The Delhi High Court has quashed an income tax assessment order and demand notice after finding that a taxpayer was denied a fair hearing. The tax department failed to communicate whether his adjournment request had been accepted or rejected. It also passed the order without considering the reply he had filed.

A Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar observed, “It is clear that the petitioner's right of being heard has been infracted and the violation of petitioner's Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India is apparent.”

The Court was hearing a petition by Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri, who had challenged the assessment order dated February 28, 2026, along with the consequential demand notice issued on the same date.

Bidhuri had filed his income tax return, declaring an income of Rs 7.61 lakh. During assessment proceedings, the department issued notices seeking information. It later issued a show cause notice requiring a response by February 13, 2026.

A day before the deadline, Bidhuri sought adjournment till February 28, 2026, stating that he was gathering relevant material. According to him, no communication was received on whether the request had been accepted or rejected. Nor was any fresh hearing date communicated.

Proceeding on the understanding that time had been granted, Bidhuri filed his reply on February 28. On the same date, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order.

The Revenue argued that sufficient opportunity had already been granted. It said the taxpayer chose to file the reply only on the last day of the extended period. The department contended that such conduct could not compel the Assessing Officer to postpone completion of the assessment.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the record did not show whether the adjournment request had been rejected. Nor did it show that any next hearing date had been communicated. This left the timeline for filing the response in the realm of guesswork.

The Court also found that the impugned assessment order made no reference to Bidhuri's reply. It also did not consider the documents submitted along with it.

The bench observed that where a taxpayer seeks adjournment, the Assessing Officer should specifically communicate the decision on that request. The officer should also invariably intimate the next hearing date through email or by making the requisite entry on the ITBA portal.

Accordingly, the court quashed the assessment order and demand notice. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct fresh proceedings after granting Bidhuri a proper hearing opportunity. The officer must also consider his reply dated February 28, 2026, before passing a fresh order.

For Petitioner: Advocate Ananya Kapoor

For Respondents: SSC Abhishek Maratha, JSC Apoorv Agarwal, JSC Viplav Acharya