Disposed¶20

Abhinav Jain v. Income Tax Officer Ward 45, 1 Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/17252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 17252/2025, Abhinav Jain v. Income Tax Officer Ward 45(1), Delhi & Ors., decided 13.11.2025 by Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao & Vinod Kumar, JJ.). Keywords: Section 148A(d) order dated 16.04.2024; Section 148 notice; A.Y. 2020-21; SCN dated 20.08.2025; 1/8th share in sold property; Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019; non-filing of registered sale/purchase deeds; direction to upload documents on portal; petition disposed of; liberty to challenge final assessment order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to upload the documents he intends to rely upon on the respondents' portal for the Assessing Officer's consideration, and liberty to agitate any grievance against the final order in accordance with law; no quashing of the impugned order or SCN. ¶20

Abhinav Jain Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 45, 1 Delhi and Ors. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notices/proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21 (including SCN dated 20.08.2025) are liable to be quashed, in view of the petitioner's claim that he is liable only to the extent of his 1/8th share in the property sold vide Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019.

¶17

Court's answer

The appropriate course is for the petitioner to upload on the respondents' portal the documents he intends to rely upon, for the consideration of the Assessing Officer.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner has any grievance against the final order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, it will be open to him to agitate the same in accordance with law.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction challenging an order dated 16.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and consequential notices/proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21, including a SCN dated 20.08.2025, arising out of a sale of property vide Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019 in which the petitioner claimed liability only to the extent of his 1/8th share. The Revenue pointed out that none of the notices had been answered and that the Assessing Officer had recorded absence of any registered Sale Deed and Purchase Deed substantiating the claim. Without quashing the impugned order, the Court directed the petitioner to upload the documents he intends to rely upon on the departmental portal for the Assessing Officer's consideration, leaving him free to challenge the final order in accordance with law.

¶1

$~84

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17252/2025 ABHINAV JAIN

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Ms Megha Jain, Mr Manish Sharma and Mr. Aditya Taneja, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45, 1 DELHI AND ORS.

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms Priyanka Jindal, Advs. for R-3.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 13.11.2025

¶10

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶11

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all consequential notices/proceedings for A.Y. 2020-21 including SCN dated 20.08.2025;

¶12

b) Issue a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned order/SCN;

¶13

c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶14

In fact the challenge is to the order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 16.04.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and also notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The submission of learned counsel for

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 21/11/2025 at 12:43:13

¶17

the petitioner is that the petitioner is liable to the extent of 1/8^th share in the property, which was sold vide Sale Deed dated 30.05.2019 and not in the manner depicted by the respondents in the notices and order passed under Section 148A(d).

¶18

Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC on the other hand submits that none of the notices issued by the respondents have been answered by the petitioner. According to him, appropriate shall be that the petitioner should upload on the portal the documents on which the petitioner intends to rely upon in support of his case. He has drawn our attention to page 89 of the paper book in support of his contention that the Assessing Officer (AO) has recorded that no registered Sale Deed and Purchase Deed to substantiate the claim has been submitted by the Assessee.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the view that appropriate shall be for the petitioner to upload the documents which he intends to rely upon on the portal of the respondents for the consideration of the Assessing Officer.

¶20

Surely, if the petitioner has grievance against the final order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, to agitate the same in accordance with law. 6. The petition is disposed of.

¶21

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶22

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶23

NOVEMBER 13, 2025 dd

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 21/11/2025 at 12:43:13

Abhinav Jain v. Income Tax Officer Ward 45, 1 Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Jain v. Income Tax Officer Ward 45, 1 Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mystic Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Karuna Shankar Dubey and Ors.

Shri Daulat Ram Lamba Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sgt Abhishek Kumar (Retd.)

Inder Singh Since Deceased through Lr Krishan Rana Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (International TAX)-3, Delhi & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Vishal Samadhiya

Mantosh Das Vs Hamdard Public School and Ors.

Kawatra Tent and Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 16 Delhi & Anr.

Kawatra Tent and Caterers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 16, Delhi

Kawatra Tent and Caterers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 16, Delhi

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs M/S Deen Dayal

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-4 Delhi Vs Krbl Infrastructure Ltd.

Neeraj Guglani Vs Principal Commissioner of Incom TAX-15 & Ors.