NDTV Reassessment Delhi HC Verdict Exposes Tax Overreach

The NDTV reassessment verdict exposes tax overreach in India and raises urgent questions on certainty, discretion, and rule of law.

By P. SESH KUMAR

New Delhi, January 20, 2026 — The recent decision of the Delhi High Court quashing reassessment notices issued to the founders of NDTV and imposing monetary costs on the Income Tax Department is not merely a case-specific relief; it is a sharp institutional indictment. The judgment exposes a deeper malaise in India’s tax administration- a culture where reassessment powers are exercised casually, appellate litigation is pursued reflexively, and statutory discretion is replaced by bureaucratic obstinacy. This episode illustrates how reassessment, meant to correct genuine tax leakage, has often degenerated into a tool of taxpayer harassment, undermining certainty, trust, and the rule of law.

From Revenue Collection to Revenue Obsession

Taxation, in any constitutional democracy, is not merely about extraction of revenue; it is about legitimacy. The legitimacy of a tax system flows not from its coercive power but from its predictability, reasonableness, and respect for due process. When these attributes erode, tax administration ceases to be a neutral enforcer of law and begins to resemble an adversarial litigant locked in a permanent duel with the taxpayer.

The recent Delhi High Court judgment quashing reassessment notices issued to NDTV founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy brings this uncomfortable truth into sharp relief. The Court did not merely strike down the notices; it imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the Income Tax Department- a rare but telling rebuke—for what it described as arbitrary, impermissible, and harassing conduct by the tax authorities. The reassessment pertained to alleged interest-free loans extended through RRPR Holding, an issue that had already been examined in earlier proceedings. In substance, the Department was attempting to reopen a concluded matter not on the basis of new tangible material, but on a recycled suspicion dressed up as fresh “reason to believe”.

The Court was blunt. Reassessment, it observed, cannot be a playground for “second thoughts” or a platform for successor officers to display superior wisdom over their predecessors. Such conduct, the judgment warned, breeds uncertainty, unpredictability, and administrative anarchy.

This judicial censure is significant not because it involves a prominent media house, but because it articulates a principle that thousands of ordinary taxpayers experience every year- the fear that no assessment is ever truly final.

The Legal Fiction of ‘Reason to Believe’

At the heart of reassessment law lies the phrase “reason to believe”. Courts have repeatedly held that this belief must be founded on tangible, new material, and must not amount to a mere change of opinion. Yet, in practice, this safeguard has often been reduced to a drafting exercise—a ritual incantation repeated in notices without substantive justification.

The NDTV case exemplifies this erosion. The reassessment notices were issued years after the original scrutiny, on facts already within the Department’s knowledge. There was no new discovery, no subsequent information from investigation wings, no external trigger. What existed was a dissatisfaction with the outcome of an earlier assessment. The High Court rightly recognised this as an abuse of power.

This pattern is not confined to this case alone. Across High Courts, reassessment notices are routinely struck down for lack of jurisdiction, mechanical approvals, vague reasons, or violation of limitation. Yet, the Department continues to issue such notices with remarkable consistency, suggesting that judicial reversals have not translated into institutional learning.

Appeals as a Matter of Ego, Not Law

Equally troubling is the Department’s tendency to pursue appeals against patently adverse orders, even when the legal position is settled and CBDT instructions advise restraint. Appeals are often filed not because the law is uncertain, but because letting go is institutionally uncomfortable.

This culture transforms litigation into a war of attrition. The taxpayer bears the cost of lawyers, time, and psychological stress, while the Department risks little beyond notional statistics. The NDTV judgment explicitly recognised this asymmetry, observing that monetary costs imposed by courts can never truly compensate for the harassment suffered by taxpayers dragged through unnecessary litigation.

CBDT has, over the years, issued multiple instructions urging officers to avoid mechanical appeals and to exercise discretion responsibly. Yet, these instructions frequently remain ornamental- cited in departmental manuals but largely ignored in operational reality.

Re-opening assessments based on audit objections

An especially troubling manifestation of reassessment overreach is the routine reopening of completed income-tax assessments solely because an audit objection has been raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), even where the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Chief Commissioner have all recorded reasoned disagreement with the audit view.

Ostensibly justified as a revenue-safeguarding measure flowing from CBDT assurances to the Public Accounts Committee, this practice finds no sanction in law or in CBDT’s own instructions. CBDT Circular No. 08/2016, compendium of instructions (2018) and the latest Instruction No. 02/2024 for internal audit—make it unambiguously clear that where competent authorities do not accept an audit objection on merits, no remedial action- including reassessment—is required.

Reopening assessments merely to demonstrate procedural compliance with audit monitoring mechanisms converts a legitimate accountability process into an instrument of taxpayer harassment. Such mechanical action reflects not revenue vigilance, but institutional insecurity, and represents a profound abdication of statutory discretion in favour of bureaucratic box-ticking.

Why This Matters Legally

Courts have consistently held that audit objections cannot constitute “reason to believe” for reopening unless independently examined and found legally sustainable by the Assessing Officer. Reassessment driven solely by audit pressure has repeatedly been struck down as change of opinion, borrowed satisfaction, and jurisdictional error.

The Chilling Effect on Tax Certainty and Investment

When assessments can be reopened years later on tenuous grounds, the promise of certainty collapses. Tax certainty is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for investment, compliance, and voluntary disclosure. The scars of the Vodafone retrospective tax episode still linger in India’s investment narrative. While the political leadership has publicly committed to ending tax adventurism, ground-level practices often tell a different story. The recent Tiger Global judgment of Supreme Court adds another layer of uncertainty and complication to this commitment, though some tax officers may view it differently.

The NDTV case reinforces the perception that reassessment is sometimes used less as a corrective tool and more as leverage- a means to keep taxpayers perpetually on edge. Such practices not only erode trust but also clog courts, overburden tribunals, and divert administrative energy away from genuine cases of evasion.

Judicial Costs as Institutional Signals

The imposition of costs in this case is particularly noteworthy. Indian courts have traditionally been reluctant to penalise state authorities monetarily. When they do, it signals more than displeasure; it signals institutional fatigue. The High Court’s message was unambiguous: reassessment cannot become a routine instrument of pressure, and disregard for settled law will attract consequences.

Yet, cost imposition remains the exception rather than the rule. Unless such sanctions become more frequent and meaningful, the deterrent effect will remain limited.

The Way Forward: From Power to Principle

The lesson from this episode is neither anti-tax nor anti-enforcement. It is pro-rule of law.

First, reassessment powers must be re-anchored firmly to their statutory purpose. Internal review mechanisms should ensure that notices based on “change of opinion” never leave the drawing board. Pre-notice scrutiny by independent panels, especially for old and concluded assessments, can serve as a vital filter.

Second, CBDT instructions on litigation management must be made operationally binding, with accountability for officers who disregard them. Appeals should be an exception grounded in legal necessity, not a default reflex.

Third, courts must continue- and perhaps escalate—the practice of imposing realistic costs where harassment is evident. Symbolic penalties no longer suffice to correct systemic behaviour.

Fourth, assessments should not be reopened routinely on the basis of CAG’s audit especially when the senior management does not agree with audit contention either on facts or on law.

Finally, tax administration must rediscover its role as a trustee of public revenue, not a predator of taxpayers. Authority without restraint is not efficiency; it is arbitrariness.

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in the NDTV case is a reminder that the power to tax is inseparable from the duty to act fairly. Reassessment is not a weapon to be unsheathed at will, nor is litigation a scoreboard of departmental perseverance. If India aspires to be a jurisdiction of trust, stability, and mature governance, its tax administration must internalise what courts have repeatedly said -that finality is not the enemy of revenue, but its most reliable ally.

(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are author’s own)

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author