SHUBHAM TIWARI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15107/2026HC DelhiDLHC01049279202612 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while hearing the stay application of an assessee is imperative, the petitioner had approached the court prematurely without first moving a formal application before the CIT(A) for early listing or hearing of the stay application. The Court directed the petitioner to first file an application before the CIT(A) for taking up the stay application for consideration at an early date. If such an application is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider it expeditiously, in accordance with law, subject to the pendency of other stay applications and urgent matters. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shubham Tiwari, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the delay in the disposal of his appeal and stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appeal was filed on April 7, 2025, and the stay application on June 1, 2025. The petitioner contended that despite the pendency of these, the revenue was resorting to coercive recovery measures. The petitioner argued that the CIT(A) had not acted upon the stay application, contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relevant CBDT circulars. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not formally applied for early listing of the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in hearing the stay application before the CIT(A) is a valid ground for approaching the High Court, considering the statutory mandate under Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT circulars? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The appeal and stay application filed before the CIT(A) are pending. - The CIT(A) has not taken up the stay application for consideration despite the statutory mandate and CBDT circulars. - The revenue is taking coercive measures for recovery of demand while the stay application is pending. Revenue's contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010492792026 + W.P.(C) 15107/2026, CM APPL. 71001/2026 & CM APPL. 71002/2026

SHUBHAM TIWARI

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Ms. Anshul Rai & Mr.Raunaq, Advocates.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

12.10.2026 1. The petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that his appeal, which was filed on 07.04.2025 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’), is pending. The petitioner also claims to have filed a stay application on 01.06.2025, which the CIT (A) has not yet taken up for consideration, in spite of the statutory mandate given under Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the CBDT circulars issued in this regard from time to time, is the main grievance which the petitioner has raised herein. 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 14/10/2026 at 11:42:07

2.

Learned counsel submitted that though the appeal of the petitioner and stay application is pending, the respondents are taking coercive measures to recover the demand raised against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. We find that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without even moving a formal application for early listing/hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 5. While observing that hearing the stay application of an assessee is imperative, as the very purpose of filing a stay application gets frustrated, we direct the petitioner to first move an application before the CIT (A) for taking up the stay application for consideration at an early date. 6. In case, any such application is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the stay application at an early date, in accordance with law, subject of course to, pendency of other stay applications and other urgent matters. 7. The writ petition alongwith pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. OCTOBER 12, 2026/nk

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 14/10/2026 at 11:42:07

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →