Sunil Verma vs Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 14 October, 2026
#
CNR No. DLHC010201902026
+ W.P.(C) 6249/2026 CM APPL. 30730/2026 CM APPL. 30731/2026
SUNIL VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, Ms. Lakshika
Kaushik & Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advs.

versus

ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL
FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. V.K.
Saksena, JSC & Ms. Hemlata Rawat,
JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
J U D G M E N T
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
assessment order dated 06.03.2026, passed under Section 144 read with
Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act
of 1961' ), essentially on the ground of violation of the principles of natural
justice.
2. Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
it is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice, wherein the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:10:37
W.P.(C) 6249/2026 Page 1 of 5

Assessing Officer ( AO ) has kept complete silence for a period of more than
six months and after issuing a notice and having received petitioner’s reply,
chosen not to consider the same and passed the assessment order without even
providing a hearing through video conferencing (VC) hearing, despite such
request being made by the petitioner.
3. Having given the opening statement, learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner came to receive a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 on
24.07.2025, in response whereof, the petitioner filed a detailed reply on
20.08.2025. He fairly admitted that in the said reply, the petitioner had not
asked for personal hearing or a hearing through VC.
4. He submitted that the petitioner did not hear anything from the AO, and
after a period of six months, the AO issued another notice being a show-cause
notice dated 04.02.2026, inter alia , issuing a questionnaire almost in the form
of a draft assessment order and asking the petitioner to furnish a reply by
08.02.2026.
5. Since only four days' time was allowed to file reply, the petitioner
sought an adjournment by submitting a request on the portal on 09.02.2026
and sought an adjournment up to 24.02.2026. The petitioner did not hear
anything from the AO, but filed a reply on the portal on 03.03.2026
(Annexure P-9), which was viewed by the AO on 04.03.2026.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner came to learn through the portal that an
assessment order dated 06.03.2026 signed on 09.03.2026 has been uploaded
raising assessee’s/petitioner’s total income at Rs.1,93,27,800/-.
7. Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
despite the respondents having received petitioner’s reply in response to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:10:37
W.P.(C) 6249/2026 Page 2 of 5

first notice on 20.08.2025, the respondent remained silent for a period of six
months and then suddenly issued a long questionnaire (after six months) on
04.02.2026 giving him practically no (four days’) time. The petitioner found
it practically impossible to give response within such a short time and thus
sent a request for adjournment on 09.02.2026 but the AO did not respond to
petitioner’s such request and passed the impugned assessment order without
considering the reply so filed by the petitioner.
8. He argued that a simple look at the screenshot of the web portal
(Annexure P-11) shows that the AO had viewed the reply so filed by the
petitioner on 04.03.2026 itself, hence, there was no reason for the AO not to
consider the reply while passing the assessment order. He argued that the
impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. As an additional argument, he submitted that in the reply, the petitioner
had also asked for VC hearing to put forth his case, but the same was also not
allowed. Learned counsel argued that at least 26 days were remaining in
matter getting time-barred, and therefore, there was no pressing urgency to
complete the assessment. Hence, the action of the AO has been arbitrary and
violative of petitioner’s fundamental rights.
10. Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned Senior Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
submitted that the petitioner was allowed time to file reply up to 08.02.2026,
whereas the request for adjournment was sent on 09.02.2026, after the
stipulated date had passed. He argued that if the petitioner wanted to seek an
adjournment, he should have sought adjournment prior to or by 08.02.2026
and since the petitioner had not sought adjournment by 08.02.2026, the AO
was justified in not giving indulgence to the petitioner. And he was thus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:10:37
W.P.(C) 6249/2026 Page 3 of 5

justified in not considering the reply so filed by the petitioner.
11. He further argued that an AO is entrusted with a number of cases for
assessment, and where the assessments are time-bound, he has to stick to
timelines and the assessees are also required to adhere to the timelines. He
contended that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own fault and
prayed that no indulgence be granted to the petitioner, who even did not care
to seek an adjournment by the due date.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. While feeling that injustice has been caused to the petitioner, as his
reply has not been considered by the AO, we are of the view that the AO
cannot be blamed or faulted with for what he has done. We agree with the
submissions made by Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned Senior Standing Counsel that
it was required of the assessee to have at least asked for adjournment, before
the due date of filing reply.
14. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot accuse the AO of
proceeding arbitrarily. However, what persuades us to interfere in the matter
is, that the AO had neither passed any order closing petitioner’s right to file
reply nor did he intimate the petitioner that its right to file reply had been
closed. Even otherwise he had given only four days’ time to respond to such a
long questionnaire that too when he had practically gone in hibernation for six
months after 24.07.2025. Therefore, if the assessee had ultimately filed reply
on 03.03.2026, which the AO had seen on 04.03.2026, the principle of justice,
equity and good conscience required the AO to consider the reply. An AO
being a quasi-judicial authority is supposed to do justice and deal with the
material available on record objectively and dispassionately.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:10:37
W.P.(C) 6249/2026 Page 4 of 5

15. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned assessment order
dated 06.03.2026 for the reasons noted above. The AO/NFAC shall fix a date
of hearing and provide a VC link to the petitioner and pass a fresh order,
obviously after considering petitioner’s reply dated 03.03.2026 and oral
submissions, if made by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
16. We make it clear that we have not made any observations on merits of
the petitioner’s contentions. The AO shall, therefore, be free to take an
independent view of the matter, as deem appropriate.
17. The writ petition stands disposed of, pending applications also stand
disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA)
JUDGE


(ADITI CHOUDHARY)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 14, 2026/ sid





Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:10:37
W.P.(C) 6249/2026 Page 5 of 5