Case Details: Aps Hydro (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dinesh Mehta & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
-
Prabhat Kumar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Sanjeev Menon, Rahul Singh, JSCs, Vijay Joshi, CGSC & Shubham Chaturvedi, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the notice dated 16.02.2022 and the corresponding order/communication dated 12.05.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax holding the petitioner to be an assessee in default under section 220(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner contended that none of the orders passed under section 154, section 143(1)(a), and section 271(1)(c) was ever served upon it. The petitioner came to know about the pendency of the demand only when it received the notice dated 16.02.2022.
The Department contended that copies of the intimations were sent to the petitioner via email.
High Court Held
The Court observed that even if the Department’s plea was taken to be correct, that the intimation and orders under section 154 were served upon the petitioner by way of e-mail, it is against natural conduct that an assessee, having been visited with a huge tax liability of lakhs of Rupees, would not take any remedy.
A simple look at the table in the notice reveals that the demands for various years, running into lakhs of Rupees, are due against the petitioner, and the intimation mentioned therein ranges from 09.02.2013 to 09.11.2020. It is difficult, nay impossible, to believe that, despite a huge pending demand against an assessee since 2013, the department will keep quiet and only get up from its slumber after 9 years.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court quashed the notice and allowed ninety days to the petitioner to file any objection against any demand.
The post Section 220(1) Notice Quashed for Non-Service & Delay | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
