[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Lindstrom Services India Private ... vs National Faceless Assessment Centre ... on 27 February, 2026
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 27.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2723/2026, CM APPL. 13243/2026 & CM APPL.
13244/2026
LINDSTROM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya
Singh and Mr. Aanjul Dalela, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit
Pareek, JSCs and Mr. Surya Jindal,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Courts
attention towards the order of this Court dated 06.02.2026 passed in
petitioner's own case and submitted that either due to some communication
gap or otherwise, the order of this Court did not reach the Assessing Officer
(who is a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)) and therefore, he passed a draft
order on 10.02.2026 under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for
Assessment Year 2023-24.
2. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent-Income Tax Department fairly conceded to this fact that due to
communication gap, the order dated 06.02.2026 could not be brought to the
notice of the AO and therefore, this order came to be passed.
3. On 06.02.2026 (Friday) in petitioner's own case, this Court passed the
following order :
"9. We are, therefore, persuaded to allow the writ petition and set
aside the order dated 05.01.2026, as the same bas been passed
without providing copies of the relied upon agreements to the
petitioner.
10. The order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the TPO is set aside
and he is directed to supply copies of the relied upon agreements
to the petitioner on or before 15.02.2026. He may redact the name
of the parties to maintain confidentiality of the parties. Upon
receipt of the agreements, it shall be required by the petitioner to
file its reply latest by 02.03.2026. On the reply being filed, the
TPO shall pass fresh order by 16.03.2026.
11. All the timelines of the proceedings before TPO and DRP shall
stand extended by 45 days qua which the petitioner shall be
precluded from raising any objection."
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
due to communication gap or on account of the order being uploaded on
10.02.2026(Tuesday), the AO has passed the order for which he cannot be
said to be at any fault.
5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 is hereby set aside.
6. The order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer
(hereinafter referred to as 'the TPO') has already been set aside and TPO
has already supplied copies of the relied upon agreements to the petitioner
on 12.02.2026. Now the petitioner shall file its reply latest by 16.03.2026.
On reply being filed, the TPO shall pass fresh order by 16.04.2026.
7. All the timelines of the proceedings before the TPO/AO and DRP
shall stand extended by sixty days qua which the petitioner shall be
precluded from raising any objection.
8. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
9. Pending applications are disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VINOD KUMAR, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2026/ss
