Delhi HC Dismisses Income Tax Dept’s Review Pleas Against Direction to Process Bechtel’s Returns [Read Order]
The court held that the Income Tax Department could not seek review of its earlier order directing processing of Bechtel’s returns, as no error apparent on the record was shown.
![Delhi HC Dismisses Income Tax Dept’s Review Pleas Against Direction to Process Bechtel’s Returns [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/23/2121595-delhi-high-court-income-tax-taxscan.jfif "Delhi HC Dismisses Income Tax Dept’s Review Pleas Against Direction to Process Bechtel’s Returns [Read Order]")
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department’s review petitions against its earlier order directing the Department to process the income tax returns. The court explained that there was no clear legal mistake in the earlier judgment and the limited power of review could not be used to reopen the case. The matter arose from writ petitions filed...
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department’s review petitions against its earlier order directing the Department to process the income tax returns. The court explained that there was no clear legal mistake in the earlier judgment and the limited power of review could not be used to reopen the case.
The matter arose from writ petitions filed by Bechtel entities complaining that their income tax returns were not being processed. By a judgment dated 27 March 2025, the High Court had allowed the writ petitions and directed the Department to process the returns in accordance with law. The Revenue later filed review petitions with delay, which the Court condoned before hearing the matter on merits.
The Department argued that the earlier judgment was passed without giving it proper opportunity to file counter affidavits and that the Court failed to decide whether the returns filed on 14 February 2018 were valid. They also argued that directing processing of returns based on a CBDT circular without deciding their validity caused serious prejudice to the Revenue.
The Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that the Revenue was represented by counsel when the writ petitions were decided and had been heard before the judgment was passed. The court explained that the case relied upon by the Department did not apply here because in that case the respondents were not heard at all.
On the issue of validity of returns, the Bench observed that its earlier direction was only to process the returns in accordance with law. It pointed out that this did not stop the Department from examining the validity of the returns during processing. Hence, no error apparent on the face of the record was made out.
The court further explained that review jurisdiction is very narrow and cannot be used to reargue the case or act like an appeal. Since the Revenue failed to show any clear error or new material, all the review petitions were dismissed and the earlier judgment was upheld.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
