$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010377792026 + W.P.(C) 11770/2026 DINESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anant Mann, JSC for Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC and Mr. P. Gupta, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. The petitioner’s earlier writ petition [W.P.(C) 10871/2026] has been dismissed or disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2026 while observing thus: “5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner’s contention that the notices (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-5) are time-barred is totally misconceived and untenable. The notices cannot be said to be time-barred, more particularly, when the same relate to recovery of demand or asking the petitioner to deposit the outstanding demand. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that, by way of notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has called upon the petitioner to deposit the outstanding demand raised by the assessment This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:46:35 order dated 14.11.2019 and the penalty order dated 22.02.2022. Surprisingly enough, upon receipt of the demand notice, the petitioner proceeded to file a response by way of his representation dated 21.07.2026 and in that also, he has raised objection regarding the notice being time-barred but did not assert that he has not received any copy of the assessment order mentioned in the notice of demand dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5). Though the notice dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) is not under challenge but even assuming the notice was under challenge, the same would not be time-barred. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that order(s) have already been passed against the petitioner, we find the petitioner’s plea to be wholly untenable and misconceived. The petition therefore, stands dismissed. 9. In case, the petitioner has not been served with the copies of the assessment order dated 14.11.2019 and penalty order dated 22.02.2022, as mentioned in the notice dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), he shall be free to apply for copies thereof from the AO. On receipt of the copies of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner shall be free to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law, with an application seeking condonation of delay and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.” 2. Now, the petitioner has again filed a fresh writ petition (within a period of 10 days) instead of going before the Appellate Authority, simply because he has purportedly received a copy of the notice which was issued on 30.03.2019 and came to realise that the said notice is time-barred. 3. According to this Court, the present writ petition is not only barred by res-judicata but also barred by the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:46:35 4. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. It is made clear that all the pleas and grounds which have been raised in the present writ petition shall be permissible to be raised before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 14, 2026/MR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:46:35