PHILCO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th January, 2026. + W.P.(C) 12318/2021, CM APPL. 38748/2021(stay) PHILCO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC, Mr. Anugrah Dwivedi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has raised a grievance that respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi has recovered the sum of Rs.11,14,660/- from refunds of petitioner from subsequent years against the alleged outstanding demand for impugned assessment year, on various dates ranging from 2010 to 2017, as enclosed with the communication dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-18) sent by the Department to the petitioner pursuant to his application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure-16) appended with the present writ Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 12318/2021 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:14.01.2026 19:15:33 petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite various representations and RTI applications, the respondents have not even provided a copy of the assessment order vide which the demand in question has been raised. Learned counsel argued that without service of the assessment order and creation of demand notice under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’), no statutory liability is created against which the amount can be recovered from the petitioner and thereafter the recovery of