Hitik Malhan Vs Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In Hitik Malhan vs Union of India & Anr., the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a reassessment notice dated 15.12.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO). The petitioner argued that in a previous round of litigation, the Court had directed the AO on 29.08.2025 to consider his reply and pass a decision in accordance with law. Despite the petitioner clarifying that the credit transactions in his books were lower than alleged, the AO did not drop the proceedings and instead referred the matter to the Faceless Assessing Officer under Section 144B.
The petitioner contended that the AO failed to consider his response and therefore the notice and proceedings deserved to be quashed. The respondent-Department argued that even earlier, the Court had found the matter required adjudication by the AO and that the petitioner had not demonstrated lack of jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the notice and proceedings could not be termed without jurisdiction or fundamentally void. It observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily invoked only where proceedings are without jurisdiction. Disputes regarding factual correctness or evidentiary material must be addressed before the Assessing Officer under the statutory mechanism provided in the Act. Finding no jurisdictional defect, the Court dismissed the petition and disposed of pending applications.
