Full Judgment Text
$~SB-1 to SB-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 09.01.2026
(1)
+ W.P.(C) 2816/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
INTERNATIONAL TAX 112 & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(2)
+ W.P.(C) 2817/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(3)
+ W.P.(C) 2818/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
INTERNATIONAL TAX 112 & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(4)
+ W.P.(C) 2819/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(5)
+ W.P.(C) 2820/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
sKhan, Adv.
AND
(6)
+ W.P.(C) 2821/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
TEJAS KARIA, J ( Oral )
CM APPL 1556/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2817/2025
CM APPL 1559/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2819/2025
CM APPL 1561/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2820/2025
1. The present Applications have been filed by the Applicant / Review
Petitions seeking condonation of delay of 54 days in re-filing the Review
Petitions.
2. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are allowed. The
delay of 54 days in re-filing the present Review Petitions is condoned.
3. The Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL 1554/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2816/2025
CM APPL 1555/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2817/2025
CM APPL 1557/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2818/2025
CM APPL 1558/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2819/2025
CM APPL 1560/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2820/2025
CM APPL 1562/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2821/2025
4. The present Applications have been filed by the Applicant / Review
Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Review
Petitions.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
5. For the reasons stated in these Applications, the delay in filing the
present Review Petitions is condoned.
6. The Applications stand disposed of.
REVIEW PETITION NO.22/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2816/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.23/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2817/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.24/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2818/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.25/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2819/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.26/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2820/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.27/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2821/2025
7. The present Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the
Judgement dated 27.03.2025 (“ Judgement ”) allowing the Writ Petition (C)
Nos. 2816/2025, 2817/2025, 2818/2025, 2819/2025, 2820/2025 and
2821/2025 (“ Writ Petitions ”) on the grounds inter alia that the Judgement
suffers from mistake of law and is plainly at variance with the clear
language of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners submitted that there is
an error apparent on the face of the record that the Writ Petitions were
allowed without even granting the Revenue, a single opportunity to file its
counter affidavit or to obtain instructions on the subject matter in
controversy. The directions issued in the Judgement have resulted in a grave
miscarriage of justice as the Revenue stands directed to process the returns
by applying the CBDT circular that the assesses had cited, which require the
returns to have been validly filed. However, the Judgement did not decide
whether the returns filed by the assesses on 14.02.2018 were actually validly
filed in the facts and circumstances of these cases. Accordingly, the
directions issued vide the Judgement without deciding whether the returns
were validly filed, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
9. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner relied upon the order
dated 03.03.2025 in The National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (Review Petition 399/2024), whereby
the Coordinate Bench of this Court entertained the Review Petition and
recalled the judgement passed whereby the writ petition was allowed
without issuing notice to the respondents in that case or granting opportunity
to file counter affidavit.
10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners. These
Review Petitions raise mainly two grounds for seeking review of the
Judgement. Firstly , the Review Petitioners were not given an opportunity to
file its counter affidavit or obtain instructions before passing the Judgement
and secondly , the Judgement was passed without deciding whether the
returns were validly filed.
11. As regards the first ground, it is observed that the Review Petitioners
was represented through Counsel as evident from the appearance mentioned
in the Judgement and an opportunity of hearing was granted to the learned
Counsel for the Review Petitioner. The Judgement was passed after fully
hearing the Counsel for the Review Petitioners. Accordingly, the reliance
placed in the decision of The National Sewing Thread Company ( supra ) is
misplaced as none had appeared for the Respondents at the time of passing
the judgement in that case. Hence, no ground is made for reviewing the
Judgement on this count.
12. As regards the second contention of the Review Petitioners that this
Court ought to have decided whether the returns were actually validly filed
in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the Judgement clearly observes
that the Review Petitioners shall process the returns in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
Accordingly, there was no error apparent on the face of the record by not
deciding whether the returns were duly and validly filed before passing the
Judgement as the direction given to the Review Petitioners provides that the
returns shall be processed in accordance with law. The Judgement also
records that if the time period for processing the return has expired, the
return must be accepted at its face value.
13. It is settled law that the scope and ambit of review is very limited. The
review can only be filed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record
without requiring any long-drawn process of reasoning or there is a
discovery of new and important facts or evidence, which was not available
earlier despite exercise of due diligence. The Review Petitioners are not
allowed to reagitate or reargue the Writ Petitions in guise of this Review
Petitions as the same are not appeals in disguise. The power to review is
extremely narrow, which only allows correction of the errors apparent on the
record, but not to substitute a view taken in the Judgement once it is signed
and pronounced.
14. As there is no case made out for reviewing the Judgement in view of
the discussion above, the present Review Petitions for review of the
Judgement dated 27.03.2025 are hereby dismissed.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DINESH MEHTA, J
JANUARY 9, 2026 / ‘A’
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 09.01.2026
(1)
+ W.P.(C) 2816/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
INTERNATIONAL TAX 112 & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(2)
+ W.P.(C) 2817/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(3)
+ W.P.(C) 2818/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
INTERNATIONAL TAX 112 & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(4)
+ W.P.(C) 2819/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
(5)
+ W.P.(C) 2820/2025
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
sKhan, Adv.
AND
(6)
+ W.P.(C) 2821/2025
BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Priya
Tandon, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 112
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra
Khan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
TEJAS KARIA, J ( Oral )
CM APPL 1556/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2817/2025
CM APPL 1559/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2819/2025
CM APPL 1561/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2820/2025
1. The present Applications have been filed by the Applicant / Review
Petitions seeking condonation of delay of 54 days in re-filing the Review
Petitions.
2. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are allowed. The
delay of 54 days in re-filing the present Review Petitions is condoned.
3. The Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL 1554/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2816/2025
CM APPL 1555/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2817/2025
CM APPL 1557/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2818/2025
CM APPL 1558/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2819/2025
CM APPL 1560/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2820/2025
CM APPL 1562/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in
W.P.(C) 2821/2025
4. The present Applications have been filed by the Applicant / Review
Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Review
Petitions.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
5. For the reasons stated in these Applications, the delay in filing the
present Review Petitions is condoned.
6. The Applications stand disposed of.
REVIEW PETITION NO.22/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2816/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.23/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2817/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.24/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2818/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.25/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2819/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.26/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2820/2025
REVIEW PETITION NO.27/2026 IN W.P.(C) 2821/2025
7. The present Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the
Judgement dated 27.03.2025 (“ Judgement ”) allowing the Writ Petition (C)
Nos. 2816/2025, 2817/2025, 2818/2025, 2819/2025, 2820/2025 and
2821/2025 (“ Writ Petitions ”) on the grounds inter alia that the Judgement
suffers from mistake of law and is plainly at variance with the clear
language of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners submitted that there is
an error apparent on the face of the record that the Writ Petitions were
allowed without even granting the Revenue, a single opportunity to file its
counter affidavit or to obtain instructions on the subject matter in
controversy. The directions issued in the Judgement have resulted in a grave
miscarriage of justice as the Revenue stands directed to process the returns
by applying the CBDT circular that the assesses had cited, which require the
returns to have been validly filed. However, the Judgement did not decide
whether the returns filed by the assesses on 14.02.2018 were actually validly
filed in the facts and circumstances of these cases. Accordingly, the
directions issued vide the Judgement without deciding whether the returns
were validly filed, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
9. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner relied upon the order
dated 03.03.2025 in The National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (Review Petition 399/2024), whereby
the Coordinate Bench of this Court entertained the Review Petition and
recalled the judgement passed whereby the writ petition was allowed
without issuing notice to the respondents in that case or granting opportunity
to file counter affidavit.
10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners. These
Review Petitions raise mainly two grounds for seeking review of the
Judgement. Firstly , the Review Petitioners were not given an opportunity to
file its counter affidavit or obtain instructions before passing the Judgement
and secondly , the Judgement was passed without deciding whether the
returns were validly filed.
11. As regards the first ground, it is observed that the Review Petitioners
was represented through Counsel as evident from the appearance mentioned
in the Judgement and an opportunity of hearing was granted to the learned
Counsel for the Review Petitioner. The Judgement was passed after fully
hearing the Counsel for the Review Petitioners. Accordingly, the reliance
placed in the decision of The National Sewing Thread Company ( supra ) is
misplaced as none had appeared for the Respondents at the time of passing
the judgement in that case. Hence, no ground is made for reviewing the
Judgement on this count.
12. As regards the second contention of the Review Petitioners that this
Court ought to have decided whether the returns were actually validly filed
in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the Judgement clearly observes
that the Review Petitioners shall process the returns in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57
Accordingly, there was no error apparent on the face of the record by not
deciding whether the returns were duly and validly filed before passing the
Judgement as the direction given to the Review Petitioners provides that the
returns shall be processed in accordance with law. The Judgement also
records that if the time period for processing the return has expired, the
return must be accepted at its face value.
13. It is settled law that the scope and ambit of review is very limited. The
review can only be filed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record
without requiring any long-drawn process of reasoning or there is a
discovery of new and important facts or evidence, which was not available
earlier despite exercise of due diligence. The Review Petitioners are not
allowed to reagitate or reargue the Writ Petitions in guise of this Review
Petitions as the same are not appeals in disguise. The power to review is
extremely narrow, which only allows correction of the errors apparent on the
record, but not to substitute a view taken in the Judgement once it is signed
and pronounced.
14. As there is no case made out for reviewing the Judgement in view of
the discussion above, the present Review Petitions for review of the
Judgement dated 27.03.2025 are hereby dismissed.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DINESH MEHTA, J
JANUARY 9, 2026 / ‘A’
W.P.(C) 2816/2025 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.01.2026
15:28:57