M/S Koushal Cloth House v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhithrough Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &Ors

$~102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 621/2025 and CM APPL. 2858/2025 M/S KOUSHAL CLOTH HOUSE .....PetitionerThrough:Mr Ravi Kant Chandhok with MrVasdevLalwaniandMrTusharSahni, Advocates. versus NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHITHROUGH PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, &ORS......Respondents .....RespondentsThrough:Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC with MsMonica Benjamin, Ms Easha Kadianand Ms Nancy Jain, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R%16.04.20251.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder: “(a) To direct the Respondents to allot fresh Log-in passwordto the Petitioner to enable the Petitioner to file appeal againstimpugned Order of assessment dated 20.03.2024 passed byRespondent No.2 for assessment year 2019 — 2020 and replyto Notice/s issued under section 148 for assessment year2017-2018; (b) In the alternative, in absence fresh log-in password, theRespondents be directed to accept hard copy of the appealagainst assessment order passed for assessment year 2019-20and reply to notice under section 148 for assessment year2017-18.” 2.The petitioner is an individual. He claims that he was a constituentpartner of a firm carrying out business under the name M/s. Koushal ClothHouse having its office at II-J/21 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The petitionerclaims that he retired from the said firm w.e.f. 31.03.2016, and thereafter,the business of the firm was carried on by the remaining partner Sh. RamanKumar Matlani as a sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s.Koushal Cloth House. It is stated that the said business was discontinued onthe demise of Sh. Raman Kumar Matlani on 17.02.2020. 3.The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the assessment order passedin respect of the erstwhile firm for Assessment Year 2019-20 whichhas resulted in a demand of ₹14,21,87,368/- including interest. The said exparte assessment order was passed on 20.03.2024. 4.It is the petitioner’s case that the assessment has been framed inrespect of certain transactions, which were entered into by M/s. MultiwalDuplex Pvt. Ltd., a company having its office in Kashipur. It is stated thatthe said company maintained accounts with the Kashipur branch of CanaraBank. It is contended that Canara Bank has erroneously sent information tothe Income Tax Department reflecting the transactions of M/s. MultiwalDuplex Pvt. Ltd. as transactions of a person holding PAN ,which was allotted to the erstwhile firm M/s. Koushal Cloth House. 5.In view of the above, the petitioner had also filed the writ petitionbeing WP(C) 9259/2024, assailing the ex parte assessment order dated20.03.2024. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.09.2024with liberty to the petitioner to avail of its statutory remedies. In theaforesaid context, the petitioner has filed the present petition contending that it is unable to file an appeal online as it does not have the login password,which may have been created by a fraudster. In absence of the loginpassword, the petitioner is also unable to respond to the notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] which was issued in respect ofAY 2017-18. 6.In the aforesaid context, this court had passed an order directing MrKumar, the learned counsel who appears for the Revenue to take instructionsas to the method which can be adopted by the petitioner to file an appeal andavail its statutory remedies. The present petition was listed on two occasionsthereafter, on 18.02.2025 and 21.03.2025.However, the learned counselwas unable to obtain the necessary instructions and had sought further timefor the said purpose. it is unable to file an appeal online as it does not have the login password,which may have been created by a fraudster. In absence of the loginpassword, the petitioner is also unable to respond to the notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] which was issued in respect ofAY 2017-18. 6.In the aforesaid context, this court had passed an order directing MrKumar, the learned counsel who appears for the Revenue to take instructionsas to the method which can be adopted by the petitioner to file an appeal andavail its statutory remedies. The present petition was listed on two occasionsthereafter, on 18.02.2025 and 21.03.2025.However, the learned counselwas unable to obtain the necessary instructions and had sought further timefor the said purpose. 7.Mr Kumar now submits that he has received instructions from theAssessing Officer but the same are of little assistance to the petitioner.He states that the AO has raised a “ticket” with ITBA and has also sent an e-mail to DGIT System but he has not yet received any response from the saidauthorities. He also submits that the written instructions received by himindicates that the Faceless Assessment Unit has assessed the income inrespect of AY 2017-18 as NIL. Thus, there is now no requirement for thepetitioner to respond to the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued forthe said assessment year. 8.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the presentpetition by directing the concerned authorities to provide the petitioner atemporary login ID and password to enable the petitioner to file an onlineappeal against the impugned assessment order dated 20.03.2024. It is alsoopen to the concerned authorities to indicate any other method, including permitting the petitioner to furnish his appeal physically instead of online, tofacilitate the petitioner to appeal the assessment order dated 20.03.2024. Onthe concerned authorities specifying the method by which the petitioner canfile an appeal, the petitioner may do so within a period of thirty daysthereafter. And, if such appeal is filed within the said period, the samewould be considered on merits uninfluenced by the question of delay.9.In the meanwhile, the impugned assessment order dated 20.03.2024shall remain stayed. If the petitioner fails to avail of his statutory remedieswithin the aforesaid period, the stay order shall stand vacated. 10.We clarify that we have not made any observation regarding themerits of the petitioner’s case and this order is confined to addressing thepetitioner’s grievance regarding its disability to file an appeal against thesaid impugned assessment order.Thus, all rights and contentions of theparties on merits are reserved. 11.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationis also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 16, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any