ROHIT CHECHI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 694/2026 ROHIT CHECHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vaibhav C, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, SPC for UOI. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC alongwith Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.26508/2026 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) 694/2026 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/ non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 10754/2025. The said order reads as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 694/2026 Page 1 of 3 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:28.04.2026 13:30:31 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that an order dated 09.04.2026 has been passed which, inter alia, records the following decision: “Subsequent to the payments made by the assessee, order u/s 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 16.01.2023 determining refund of Rs.6,30,431/-. Unfortunately, CPC adjusted the refund of Rs.6,30,431/- against the penalty demand of Rs.19,38,000/- which was already irrelevant as the assessee had already opted for the DTVSVs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 694/2026 Page 2 of 3 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:28.04.2026 13:30:31 Scheme and has already settled his dues. In order to cancel the Penalty demand of Rs. 19,38,000/- u/s 271(1)(c), the then AO passed an order u/s 275(1)(A)/271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide dated 06.04.2023. Thus, the penalty demand u/s 271(1)(c) of