Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Delhi (South) Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Anr.

¶1

$~5 & 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6049/2026, CM APPL. 29798/2026 & CM APPL. 29799/2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 6051/2026, CM APPL. 29804/2026 & CM APPL. 29805/2026

¶5

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, DELHI (SOUTH) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rony Dominen John and Mr. Piyush Swami, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, JSC, Mr. Gooraang Ranjan, Ms. Harshita Kotra, Advocates along with Mr. Brij Lal Meena, JCIT (A)-2, Jaipur (Retd.).

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶9

%

¶10

O R D E R 17.07.2026

¶11

The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner- Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Delhi (South), an arm of the Union of India, challenging an order passed by another arm of the Union of India. The challenge is founded on a rather strange ground that the judgments which have been referred to by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘ CIT (A) ’] in its order dated 24.02.2026

¶12

W.P.(C) 6049/2026 & W.P.(C) 6051/2026

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 22/07/2026 at 12:47:46

¶16

do not exist.

¶17

When the matter was listed for motion hearing on 04.05.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the Court’s attention towards paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order and submitted that CIT (A) had relied upon six judgments to substantiate its reasoning and none of which actually existed. 3. Consequently, a notice was issued to the author of the impugned order, Mr. Brij Lal Meena, ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Jaipur, seeking clarification/ response in relation to the source from which he has taken above citations. Our Legal Researchers inform that they have not been able to find the said judgments of the courts with the given titles. The judgment that the officer has mentioned are the following:-

¶18

A. CIT v. Outstanding Industrial Enterprises, (2002) 256 ITR 466 (Del) B. CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 229

¶19

C. CIT v. Jayachandran Textile Mills, (2019) 413 ITR 244 (SC)

¶20

D. CIT v. Veerabhadrappa & Sons , (2000) 245 ITR 232 (SC)

¶21

E. CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (2004) 267 ITR 337 (SC)

¶22

F. CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 1 (SC)

¶23

We have called/summoned above books and to our utter surprise, none of the cited judgments exist.

¶24

An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Brij Lal Meena. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, submitted that Mr. Meena who has since retired was having heavy workload, due to which he had relied upon his Inspector, who had furnished above citations, and he had used/inserted these citations, without verifying. The same plea has been taken in the affidavit, so filed.

¶25

W.P.(C) 6049/2026 & W.P.(C) 6051/2026

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 22/07/2026 at 12:47:46

¶29

We have experienced that the practice of citing non-existing or hallucinated citations is increasing day by day. Any order which is edified on any order/judgment which does not exist, is a nullify and amounts to fraud upon the justice delivery system. The time has come, if an Authority or court is found citing or relying upon non-existent judgments, whether generated through artificial intelligence or self-generated, a strict action including a disciplinary action be taken.

¶30

An order passed by an adjudicating authority may well be founded on his own logic, reasoning or interpretation of the provisions. It is not necessary that every conclusion must flow from a judicial precedent or should be fortified by a judicial pronouncement. But an order based on an incorrect law is meant to be set aside.

¶31

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the CIT (A) and remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh, in accordance with law.

¶32

As the author of the impugned order has since retired from service, we do not wish to pass any direction for initiation of disciplinary action against him.

¶33

The petition is accordingly disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶34

DINESH MEHTA, J.

¶35

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶36

JULY 17, 2026/ nd

¶37

W.P.(C) 6049/2026 & W.P.(C) 6051/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

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 22/07/2026 at 12:47:46

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Delhi (South) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Delhi (South) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shakeel Ahmad Burney

Ratinder Nath Abrol Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Union of India and Ors. Vs Chandrakant Tyagi

Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney Vs Union of India and Others

Sh Vyome Mehta Vs Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Delhi Zone & Ors.

Cma (Dr.) Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs Institute of Cost Accountants of India

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Prashant Singh & Anr.

Ms. Aqsa Azeem Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Public Political Party Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Salesforce.Com Singapore Pte Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), International Taxation , New Delhi & Ors.

Public Political Party Vs Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax and Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Vs M/S Narainhari Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Ravi Bharadwaj

Schlumberger Asia Services Limited Represented through Its Authorized Representative Amit Arora Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-2 International Taxation Dehradun & Anr.