The Delhi High Court has held that where an assessee files an adjournment request and the Assessing Officer neither communicates whether the request is accepted or rejected nor intimates the next date of hearing, and the assessee’s reply filed within the extended period is not considered before passing the assessment order, the assessee’s right of hearing stands violated and the resultant assessment order is liable to be quashed for breach of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court also laid down that, upon receipt of an adjournment application, the Assessing Officer should pass a specific order on the request and invariably intimate the next date of hearing through email or by an entry on the ITBA portal as per prescribed procedure.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar found from the record that the petitioner had in fact sought adjournment on February 12, 2026 up to February 28, 2026, and the respondents were unable to show whether that request had been rejected or whether the petitioner had been informed of the next date in case the request was accepted. The Bench observed that, in such circumstances, it remained “in the realm of guess work” as to what time had actually been allowed or what date had been fixed by the Assessing Officer for filing the reply.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had filed his reply on February 28, 2026, and held that it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to at least consider the same before passing the assessment order. This conclusion was reinforced by the Assessing Officer’s own communication dated April 20, 2026, wherein it was stated that the assessee filed his reply on February 28, 2026, “i.e., on the last date of the extended period granted.”
The Bench further found that the impugned assessment order contained neither any reference to the petitioner’s reply nor any consideration of the contentions and material filed along with that reply. It accordingly observed that, where an assessee moves an application for adjournment, the Assessing Officer, whether faceless or jurisdictional, should pass a specific order indicating whether the adjournment request is being accepted or rejected, and should invariably intimate the next date of hearing either by email or by making the requisite entry on the ITBA portal in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The Bench held that the petitioner’s right of being heard had been infracted and that the violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India was apparent. On that basis, the Bench quashed the assessment order and demand notice as being contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Briefly, the petitioner had challenged the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, along with the consequential notice of demand issued under Section 156 on the same date. The petitioner had filed his return declaring income of Rs. 7.61 lakhs, after which scrutiny assessment was undertaken and petitioner was show-caused. On one day before the due date for response, the petitioner made an adjournment request seeking time on the ground that he was gathering requisite material, and did not participate believing that the adjournment request would be acceded to. However, since no reply was furnished, the assessment order came to be passed.
The petitioner contended that no communication was received either rejecting the adjournment request or intimating the next date of hearing, and that he nevertheless filed a reply, but on the very same date the Assessing Officer passed and uploaded the assessment order without considering that reply. The respondent argued that the petitioner had already been allowed sufficient time and, having failed to file the response, the Assessing Officer was justified in proceeding on the basis of available material.
Appearances:
Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, for Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Apoorv Agarwal, Viplav Acharya, JSCs, for Respondent
