Ketan Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural…
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 144B- Principle of natural justice
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
+ W.P.(C) 5846/2021 & C.M. No.18310/2021 KETAN RIBBONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate.
petitioner, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 23rd May 2021 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was unable to file reply due to the lockdown imposed in the NCT of Delhi on 19th April 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He emphasises that for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control and in particular COVID-19 pandemic, non-accessibility to login credentials and material documents, unavailability of the Chartered Accountant, the Petitioner could not file objections and produce records and documents before the Respondent. He contends that the Respondent ought to have granted more time to the Petitioner for the said purpose. In support of his contention, he relies upon the affidavit of the Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant-Mr. Shyam Aggarwal, which has been placed on record. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:- “5. I say that the records of the login credentials of the Income Tax E-Portal of all my clients are maintained at my office at 211, Aditya Complex, C-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.…
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Petitioner/Assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246 of the Act. He further states that the Petitioner has concealed the fact the Petitioner did not file its reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 between 26th April, 2021 to 17th May, 2021. He contends that there is no violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner had filed its responses on more than five occasions previously. 5. Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the view that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was unable to reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant has filed a sworn affidavit confirming that he was unable to provide the Petitioner with the Login Credentials of the Income Tax E-Portal and the official records as they were maintained in his office at 211, Aditya Complex, C-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi- 53 and he was unable to access them due to Covid-19 pandemic. 6. This Court also takes…
of the Constitution; where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or when the vires of a legislation is challenged. Accordingly, the present writ petition is maintainable. 8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, notice of demand and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, all dated 23rd May 2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are set aside. The Petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice and the draft assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 within two weeks. The Respondent/National Faceless Assessment Centre is directed to pass the fresh assessment order within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
Appellant / assessee submissions
petitioner, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 23rd May 2021 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was unable to file reply due to the lockdown imposed in the NCT of Delhi on 19th April 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He emphasises that for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control and in particular COVID-19 pandemic, non-accessibility to login credentials and material documents, unavailability of the Chartered Accountant, the Petitioner could not file objections and produce records and documents before the Respondent. He contends that the Respondent ought to have granted more time to the Petitioner for the said purpose. In support of his contention, he relies upon the affidavit of the Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant-Mr. Shyam Aggarwal, which has been placed on record. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:- “5. I say that the records of the login credentials of the Income Tax E-Portal of all my clients are maintained at my office at 211, Aditya Complex, C-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.…
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Petitioner/Assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246 of the Act. He further states that the Petitioner has concealed the fact the Petitioner did not file its reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 between 26th April, 2021 to 17th May, 2021. He contends that there is no violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner had filed its responses on more than five occasions previously. 5. Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the view that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was unable to reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant has filed a sworn affidavit confirming that he was unable to provide the Petitioner with the Login Credentials of the Income Tax E-Portal and the official records as they were maintained in his office at 211, Aditya Complex, C-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi- 53 and he was unable to access them due to Covid-19 pandemic. 6. This Court also takes…
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
of the Constitution; where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or when the vires of a legislation is challenged. Accordingly, the present writ petition is maintainable. 8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, notice of demand and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, all dated 23rd May 2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are set aside. The Petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice and the draft assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 within two weeks. The Respondent/National Faceless Assessment Centre is directed to pass the fresh assessment order within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING
Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING
High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.
Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with dhc order dated: 18-05-2022 hon’ble delhi high court quashed assessment order, notice of demand and penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during covid-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. the court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. dhc also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Ketan Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre?
DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural…
Which facts matter most?
+ W.P.(C) 5846/2021 & C.M. No.18310/2021 KETAN RIBBONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate.
What did the Delhi High Court decide?
of the Constitution; where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or when the vires of a legislation is challenged. Accordingly, the present writ petition is maintainable. 8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, notice of demand and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, all dated 23rd May 2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are set aside. The Petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice and the draft assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 within two weeks. The Respondent/National Faceless Assessment Centre is…
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
144B- Principle of natural justice
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - DHC order dated: 18-05-2022 Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was of the view that filing of earlier replies was not relevant as the petitioner had independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. DHC also rejected the revenue argument of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee where there is violation of principle of natural… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 144B- Principle of natural justice - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Rajesh Somandas Sachdev v. ITO & Ors. - Bombay High Court
- Vasavi Developers v. DCIT - ITAT Hyderabad
- Deepak Maratha v. UOI - Rajasthan High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao v. ADIT - Operative order controls
- Amish Harenkumar Parikh v. ACIT - Operative order controls
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.