Dismissed¶6

Nemi Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4226/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nemi Chand Jain; PAN misuse; VAT registration surrendered 09.07.2012; Section 148A(d) Income Tax Act 1961 order 30.08.2024; Section 148 final assessment order absent; penalty proposal notice 07.03.2026; Article 226 extraordinary jurisdiction; W.P.(C) 4226/2026; Delhi High Court; writ petition dismissed as misconceived; Assessing Officer action challenged; complaints not reply.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no assertion on the part of the petitioner to show that the transactions do not belong to him, and found no jurisdiction error. ¶4

Nemi Chand Jain Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had made any assertion showing that the transactions carried out in his name (allegedly through misuse of his Permanent Account Number) do not belong to him, and whether any jurisdictional error existed in the respondent-Assessing Officer's action. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The Court found no assertion on the part of the petitioner to show that the transactions do not belong to him, and found no jurisdiction error.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The documents that learned counsel for the petitioner had taken the Court through were complaints and not his reply.

¶3

Key takeaways

The Court observed that an assessment order seems to have been passed.obiter¶5
No case was found warranting interference in exercise of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petition being misconceived, it was dismissed along with pending applications.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed — alleged misuse of Permanent Account Number in income-tax proceedings. Petitioner Nemi Chand Jain, who had surrendered his VAT registration on 09.07.2012 and closed his business, challenged the action of the respondent-Assessing Officer on the plea that someone else had transacted in his name using his PAN. He annexed an order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure P-1) and a notice dated 07.03.2026 proposing levy of penalty (Annexure P-2), but placed on record no final assessment order under Section 148. Holding that counsel had taken the Court only through complaints and not the petitioner's reply; that no assertion established the transactions did not belong to the petitioner and no jurisdictional error existed; and that an assessment order seemingly having been passed (such penalty notices issuing only after a demand is raised and assessment finalised), the Court found no case warranting interference under Article 226 and dismissed the misconceived petition along with pending applications. Coram: Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar, JJ.; decided 01.04.2026.

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4226/2026, CM APPLs. 20594/2026 & 20595/2026

¶3

NEMI CHAND JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Rana, Mr. Aditya Choudhary, Mr. Himanshu Rohilla, Ms. Ambika Gupta, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Mr. V.K. Saksena, Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSCs, Mr. Saurabh, Mr. Abhay, Advs. for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. for R-3.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶8

O R D E R % 01.04.2026

¶9

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent-Assessing Officer on the ground that though on 09.07.2012, he had surrendered his Value Added Tax (VAT) registration and thereafter closed his business, yet someone has misused his Permanent Account Number and carried out business transactions in his name.

¶10

The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-1 i.e., copy of order dated 30.08.2024 being an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „The Act of 1961‟) . However, no final assessment order under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has been placed on record, whereas Annexure P-2 is copy of the notice dated 07.03.2026

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 06/04/2026 at 11:03:53

¶13

proposing to levy penalty against the petitioner has been filed, which is issued once a demand has been raised and assessment proceedings have been finalised.

¶14

Whatever documents learned counsel for the petitioner had taken us through are complaints and not his reply.

¶15

We neither find any assertion on the part of the petitioner to show that the transactions do not belong to him nor do we find any jurisdiction error. 5. That apart, an assessment order seems to have been passed. We, therefore, do not find any case warranting interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition, being misconceived, is hereby dismissed alongwith pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

APRIL 1, 2026/ck

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 06/04/2026 at 11:03:53

Nemi Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemi Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs Consolidation Officer

Manas Kumar Dubey & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anju Tanwar Vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.

Sonu Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Kripal Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Siyaram Meena and Ors. Vs Railway Protection Force and Ors.

Shakuntla Sharma Vs DDA & Ors.

Surya Food and Agro Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 22(2), Delhi & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -15, Delhi Vs Nivesh Group

Surya Food and Agro Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 22(2), Delhi & Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax, International TAXATION-1, Delhi Vs Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd.

Alka Agarwal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Vs M/S Remfry and Sagar