Successor To Clix Finance India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court heard a petition concerning non-implementation of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 254/250/143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 25.02.2022. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the Assessing Officer had recorded that necessary forms and challans would be issued, no action had been taken for more than four years despite a series of reminders.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had placed on record at least 20 representations sent through email to the respondent and that, due to the authorities’ inaction, more than ₹15 crore of the petitioner’s working capital remained blocked with the respondents for four years. The High Court directed that the matter be listed on 21.08.2026. It also directed the concerned Assessing Officer to remain personally present before the Court along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the inordinate four-year delay in taking the necessary steps. The Court further directed the Assessing Officer to show cause as to why the interest payable for the delay should not be recovered from his salary.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited Court’s attention towards the order under Section 254/250/143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer way back on 25.02.2022 and submitted that regardless of the note made by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the necessary forms and challans would be issued, nothing has been done for more than four years, though a series of letters and reminders were sent by the assessee during this period.
2. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner has placed on record atleast 20 representations that have sent via E-mail to the respondent and submitted that because of the indolent approach of the authorities, a substantial working capital of more than Rs. 15 Crores is lying stuck with the respondents for four years.
3. List this case on 21.08.2026.
4. The concerned Assessing Officer concerned shall remain present in the Court, alongwith his affidavit setting out the reason or explanation for the inordinate delay of four years in doing the needful. He shall also show cause as to why the interest payable on this amount for the delay be not recovered from his salary?
