Allowed

Pramod Agrawal v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8416/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against ex-parte assessment order passed without considering the petitioner's reply or giving him an opportunity of hearing. The court held that interest of justice warranted one opportunity and quashed the assessment order.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order dated 25.03.2026 quashed; reply dated 19.03.2026 to be taken on record; fresh hearing and fresh assessment order on or before 30.09.2026.

Pramod Agrawal Vs Union of India & Anr. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8416/2026, CM APPL. 39426/2026 & CM APPL. 39425/2026

¶4

PRAMOD AGRAWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanishk Rana & Ms. Nisha Bhardwaj, Advs.

¶5

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Panwar, SPC with Mr. Deepansh Sharma, Advs. for R1. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC Ms. Monica Benjamin JSC, Mr. Gibran Naushad, JSC and Ms. Laiba Arif, Advs. for R2.

¶6

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

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 01.07.2026

¶9

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.03.2026 whereby the respondent No.2 has framed ex-parte assessment against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has small, yet substantial grievance inasmuch as neither his reply was considered nor was he provided with an opportunity of hearing before the impugned assessment order was passed.

¶11

While maintaining that the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ms. Monica Benjamin, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner had failed to file reply to the show cause notice dated 24.12.2025

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 03/07/2026 at 11:45:18

¶14

by the due date, which was 08.01.2026 and therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in proceeding with the matter. She added that even no request for extension of time for filing reply was made by the petitioner.

¶15

She, however, could not satisfy the Court as to why the petitioner’s reply was not taken on record and considered.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that maybe the Assessing Officer was technically correct in proceeding but since petitioner’s reply has not been considered and he has not been accorded an opportunity of hearing, we are of the view that interest of justice warrants that one opportunity be allowed to the petitioner.

¶17

The writ petition is, thus, allowed.

¶18

The impugned Assessment Order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner’s reply which was filed on 19.03.2026 is ordered to be taken on record.

¶19

The Assessing Officer shall fix and intimate a date of hearing while also providing a VC link to the petitioner and a fresh order shall be passed after considering the petitioner’s reply and the oral submissions (if any) made by him.

¶20

It shall be required of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order on or before 30.09.2026.

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

¶22

DINESH MEHTA, J.

¶23

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶24

JULY 1, 2026 /neelam

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 03/07/2026 at 11:45:18

Pramod Agrawal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Agrawal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jaimala Jain Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Brahamanand Gupta and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Praveen Kumar and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Umair Alam Vs Commissioner Department of Trade Taxes & Anr.

Rewanchal Institute of Education and Technology Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.

Dr. Sanjay Tewari Vs Indian Sociological Society and Ors.

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-05, Mumbai Vs M/S Vodafone West Ltd. (Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.)

Nikhill Taneja Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax Inv