M/S SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1172/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059029200518 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution. The Court noted that nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, M/s Sawhney Export House, on the current date of hearing, nor on the previous date. Furthermore, the court notice sent to the appellant was returned unserved with a note stating that no such firm, company, or office exists at the given address. Based on these observations, the Court concluded that the appellant had lost its interest in pursuing the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed solely on the ground of non-prosecution, without any decision on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeals, ITA Nos. 1171/2005, 1172/2005, and 1175/2005, were filed by M/s Sawhney Export House (the appellant) against the Commissioner of Income Tax (the respondent). The appellant was represented by 'None' in court. The Court notice issued to the appellant was returned unserved with the remark, 'unserved, no such firm/company/office exists at the given address'. This situation was noted on both the current date of hearing and the previous date, January 17, 2026. The Court inferred that the appellant had lost interest in pursuing the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by M/s Sawhney Export House are liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, given the absence of the appellant and the unserved court notice indicating the firm may not exist at the given address? (Question of procedure/fact) Assessee's contentions: None recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The respondent's counsel, Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Ms. Harshita Kotru, and Mr. Gauraang Ranjan, appeared. The judgment does not explicitly record their arguments, but their presence implies they are ready to proceed or defend the lower authority's order. The core issue revolves around the appellant's failure to prosecute the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~8 to 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1171/2005 M/S SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE .....Appellant Through: None. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Harshita Kotru, Mr. Gauraang Ranjan, Advs. 9 + ITA 1172/2005 M/S SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE .....Appellant Through: None. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Harshita Kotru, Mr. Gauraang Ranjan, Advs. 10

+ ITA 1175/2005 M/S SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE .....Appellant Through: None. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Harshita Kotru, Mr. Gauraang Ranjan, Advs. 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 21/02/2026 at 11:25:21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

18.02.2026 1. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Even on the previous date i.e. 17.01.2026, nobody appeared. 2. Even the Court notice issued to the appellant has returned with a note “unserved, no such firm/company/office exists at the given address”. 3. It is thus, apparent that the appellant has lost its interest in pursuing the present appeals. 4. The appeals are therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2026/ck 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 21/02/2026 at 11:25:21

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →