Alka Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 01, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1260650

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1260650
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta
Decided On: Apr 01, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/4254/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Alka Agarwal

Advocate Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Yojit Pareek, Mr. Surya Jindal

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi & Anr.

Excerpt

.....under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act of 1961’).2. mr. sumit lalchandani, learned counsel for petitioner at the outsetargued that the impugned order is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but is also against the settled legal position, including thejudgment of hon’ble the supreme court in the case of union of india v.rajeev bansal: 2024 insc 754.3. mr. gaurav gupta, learned senior standing counsel accepted that theassessee seems to have filed a reply on 27.02.2026 however the assessmentorder came to be passed on very same day and may be because ofinadvertence or communication gap, the order came to be passed without considering petitioner’s reply.4. in view of the facts noted above, we set aside the impugned orderdated 27.02.2026 and consequential proceedings and remand the matter back to the ao. the assessing officer shall consider petitioner’s reply dated 27.02.2026 in accordance with law, including petitioner’s objection in the light of judgment of hon’ble the supreme court in the case of rajeev bansal (supra) and pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from today.5. in case the petitioner prays for personal opportunity of hearing, theao shall give the same to the petitioner.6. petition allowed accordingly, cm appl. 20672/2026 and cm appl.dinesh mehta, jvinod kumar, japril 1, 2026/dd

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4254/2026, CM APPL. 20672/2026, CM APPL. 20673/2026

ALKA AGARWAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL

CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

ORDER

% 01.04.2026

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

reassessment order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the respondent under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).

2. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, learned counsel for petitioner at the outset

argued that the impugned order is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but is also against the settled legal position, including the

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.

Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754.

3. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepted that the

assessee seems to have filed a reply on 27.02.2026 however the assessment

order came to be passed on very same day and may be because of

inadvertence or communication gap, the order came to be passed without considering petitioner’s reply.

4. In view of the facts noted above, we set aside the impugned order

dated 27.02.2026 and consequential proceedings and remand the matter back to the AO. The Assessing officer shall consider petitioner’s reply dated 27.02.2026 in accordance with law, including petitioner’s objection in the light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from today.

5. In case the petitioner prays for personal opportunity of hearing, the

AO shall give the same to the petitioner.

6. Petition allowed accordingly, CM APPL. 20672/2026 and CM APPL.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

APRIL 1, 2026/dd

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Alka Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cir... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta