Delhi HC Sets Aside CIT(A) Order for Relying on Hallucinated Judicial Citations

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court considered writ petitions filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Delhi (South), challenging an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The petitioner contended that the CIT(A) had relied upon six judicial decisions in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, none of which actually existed.

At the motion hearing on 04.05.2026, the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the cited judgments. The Court issued notice to the author of the impugned order, Mr. Brij Lal Meena, ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Jaipur, seeking clarification regarding the source of the citations. The Court’s Legal Researchers were unable to locate any of the judgments referred to in the order. The Court also summoned the reported law books and found that none of the cited judgments existed.

Mr. Brij Lal Meena filed an affidavit. The Department submitted that, owing to a heavy workload, he had relied upon his Inspector, who had furnished the citations, and that he had incorporated them without verification. The same explanation was contained in his affidavit.

The High Court observed that the practice of citing non-existing or hallucinated citations was increasing. It stated that any order founded on a judgment that does not exist is a nullity and amounts to fraud upon the justice delivery system. The Court further observed that while an adjudicating authority may base its order on its own reasoning or interpretation of statutory provisions, it is not necessary that every conclusion must be supported by judicial precedent. However, an order founded on incorrect law is liable to be set aside.