HITIK MALHAN vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th February, 2026. + W.P.(C) 1604/2026 & CM APPL. 7827/2026 HITIK MALHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Uday Bedi (VC) with Ms. Shivani Aggarwal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC. JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 15.12.2025, so also, the proceedings which the respondent- Assessing Officer has triggered against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the order passed by this Court in previous round of litigation, which the petitioner had undertaken and submitted that on 29.08.2025, this Court has clearly directed the Assessing Officer to consider petitioner's reply and response and take decision in accordance with law, yet in spite of the fact that the petitioner had clarified that the credit transactions in his books of accounts are not as claimed by the Assessing Officer and they are much lower, still the Assessing Officer has not dropped the proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) and has referred the matter to the Faceless Assessing Officer by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1604/2026 Page 1 of 3 By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:07.02.2026 13:19:36 way of a notice under Section 144B of the Act of 1961. 3. He argued that the notice so also the proceedings are liable to be quashed, as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not taken into account the petitioner's reply. 4. Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Department, on the other hand, argued that even in the first round of l