$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 16.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 578/2026 CM APPL.2864/2026 CM APPL.2865/2026 EXPRESS FREIGHT CONSORTIUM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nageswar Rao, Mr. Parth and Mr.

Ravilochan Daliparthi, Advs.

versus ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

JUDGMENT

DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final assessment order and corresponding demand notice which the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has passed on

18.12.2025, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. Apprising the facts briefly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that draft assessment order was passed on

06.11.2025, whereafter, the petitioner filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) on 05.12.2025. It is admitted that a copy thereof was not sent to the AO, bonafidely believing that the DRP shall forward the same to him.

3. While admitting that the assessee did receive a notice from the AO on 08.12.2025, the petitioner did not respond to it under the impression that the proceedings will be kept in abeyance, as it had filed objections before the DRP and an intimation to this effect will be given and copy of the objections shall be forwarded to the AO, as the assessment process is faceless.

4. It is further submitted that to petitioner’s shock and surprise, a final order has been passed by the AO on 18.12.2025, without calling for his response/reply. While informing that the limitation for passing the final order was up to 31.01.2025, learned counsel argued that the AO could have inquired from the petitioner as to whether objections have been filed or not. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside being contrary to the principle of natural justice.

5. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department on the other hand submitted that since the final assessment order has been passed, the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy rather than bothering this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have considered the facts of the present case. As the petitioner received draft assessment order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) and it had filed his objections before the DRP on 05.12.2025, he may not be legally correct or justified in presuming that such objections (filed before DRP) shall be sent to the AO as well, because it is a regime of faceless proceedings.

7. Since the AO did not receive copy of the objection, he also presumed and rightly so that the petitioner has not filed objections to the draft assessment order and proceeded as per Section 144C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act of 1961’) and passed the impugned order within one month from the end of the month, in which the draft assessment order was received by the petitioner.

8. As a matter of fact, Section 144C(2)(b) of the Act, 1961 enjoins upon the petitioner to forward a copy of the objections qua the draft assessment order to the AO also, which the petitioner admittedly failed to do. According to us, it was a small breach or lapse on the part of the petitioner which has led the AO to draw a presumption that the petitioner has not filed any objection qua the proposed/draft assessment order.

9. We feel that the consequence of such breach on the part of the petitioner to comply with Section 144C(2)(b) has resulted in adverse consequence to it inasmuch as a demand has been raised without the objection filed by the petitioner before the DRP being considered.

10. The scheme of Section 144C of the Act of 1961 provides that once the draft order is prepared by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), the petitioner has a right to file objection, which shall be considered by the D