CLEAN SOLAR POWER (JODHPUR) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) NEW DELHI AND ORS

2026 DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

He prayed that amendment application be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer so also the Appellate Authority be decided on merits by the High Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to continue with the writ petition which was essentially preferred against order dated 03.10.2025, whereby stay application filed by the petitioner-company was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Because the stay application was only for the period up to decision of the appeal and the appeal itself has been decided by the Appellate Authority.

The petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We fail to accept any reason for which the petitioner should not avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal.

We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition and close the proceedings at this stage itself, however with a direction that in case, the petitioner prefers an appeal alongwith the stay application, the recovery of the demand against the petitioner-company shall remain stayed for four weeks from today.

It is made clear that we have passed this order in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering what we had noticed on the previous date of hearing i.e. 20.01.2026. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced 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 17/03/2026 at 11:22:58

Taking the Court through the impugned assessment order dated 20.03.2025, he argued that a simple look at the assessment order shows that it is in relation to alleged unexplained purchase of capital assets as per provisions contained in Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He argued that the expenditure which are duly reflected in the books of accounts (which have been audited twice) cannot be said to be an unexplained.

Usually, we would not have indulged in the present writ petition when the matter relates to rejection of stay application but considering the submissions noted hereinabove, we are of the view that if the demand appears to be unsustainable on the face of it, the Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the stay application mechanically, more so, in light of the Office Memorandum of CBDT, without dealing with the grounds taken in the stay application.”

We request the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide petitioner’s stay application expeditiously, in case it has been filed within four weeks’ from today.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications.

The next date of hearing (09.04.2026) stands cancelled.