AON CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court acknowledged that appeals for AY 2011-12, AY 2014-15, and AY 2015-16 had been pending for over seven years. However, the Court declined to interfere with the calendar of the Appellate Authority, especially considering the pendency of MAP proceedings. The Court noted that without awareness of the overall pendency of the Appellate Authority relative to the number of authorities, it could not pass sweeping directions. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to move an application for expeditious disposal of the appeals before the CIT(A) or a higher authority within the Income Tax Department. This application should highlight the urgency, and the concerned authorities are expected to take up the appeals for hearing in accordance with law and assigned priority. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, AON Consulting Private Limited, filed multiple writ petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of their appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appeals pertain to various assessment years, ranging from 2011-12 to 2017-18, with some appeals having been filed as early as March 2020 and others as far back as January 2018. The petitioner argued that despite multiple hearings and the long pendency of over five years, the CIT(A) had not decided these appeals, adversely affecting their rights. The revenue contended that the delay was primarily due to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which were decided only on December 5, 2023, and also cited the large pendency before the CIT(A) and the petitioner's filing of revised grounds of appeal on June 10, 2025.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) should be directed to expeditiously decide the appeals of the petitioner, which have been pending for over five years, considering the adverse impact on the petitioner's rights? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the appeals have been pending before the CIT(A) for more than five years, and despite being called on multiple occasions, the CIT(A) has not heard or decided them. This long pendency has adversely affected the petitioner's rights. The petitioner also contended that there is no embargo on the Appellate Authority proceeding with the matter even if MAP proceedings are pending, and the effect of MAP orders could be given later. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the delay was primarily due to the pendency of Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which were decided on December 5, 2023. They also cited the large pendency before the CIT(A) as a reason for the delay and pointed out that the petitioner had filed revised grounds of appeal on June 10, 2025, which contributed to the delay. The revenue argued that the Appellate Authority could not proceed due to the pendency of MAP proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Sakshi Saimwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs and Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Ms. Harshita Kotru and Mr. Sachin Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %
2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeals are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’) for more than five years and then he be directed to decide them expeditiously. The relevant details vis a vis the writ petition number is given in the table below:- Item No. WPC No. AY Date of Filing Appeal before CIT(A) Pendency of MAP Proceedings with US Competent Authorities Revised Grounds of Appeal/ Intimation of MAP Acceptance of Revised Grounds by CIT(A) 17 2109/2026 2016-17 24.03.2020 2023-2025 10.06.2025 - 18 2110/2026 2017-18 31.05.2021 2023-2025 10.06.2025 - 19 2111/2026 2015-16 26.03.2019 2023-2025 10.06.2025 28.01.2026 20 2112/2026 2014-15 29.01.2018 2018-2025 10.06.2025 28.01.2026 21 2113/2026 2011-12 22.05.2015 2015-2023 05.12.2023 NA
He contended that inspite of the fact that the appeals are pending and the petitioner has been called by the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, the 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.
appeals have not been heard/decided by the CIT(A). He submitted that the because of the long pendency of the said appeals, the petitioner’s rights have been adversely affected.
Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the contentions as raised by the petitioner are not correct on facts inasmuch as it was essentially because of the fact that the proceedings under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘MAP’) under the US-India Treaty were pending and the same came to be decided only on 05.12.2023 and it was for this reason, the Appellate Authority could/did not proceed (because of the pendency of those proceedings).
Apart from that, he argued that CIT(A) is having large pendency, due to which, the decision of the appeals takes time. It was also contended by Mr. Agrawal that the petitioner had filed revised ground(s) of appeal on 10.06.2025 and therefore, he cannot blame the Appellant Authority for late disposal of the appeals.
Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submitted that there is no embargo on the Appellate Authority proceeding with the matter, in case the MAP proceedings are pending. He argued that the Appellate Authority could well decide the appeals and the effect of the order passed by the MAP could have been given later on.
Be that as it may, though the pendency of appeals qua Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 is more than seven years but we cannot decide and interfere with the calendar of the Appellate Authority, more particularly when the MAP proceedings were pending.
Unless we are aware of the pendency of the Appellate Authority vis a 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.
vis the number of Appellate Authorities, we cannot pass any sweeping direction.
Without interfering in the matter, we grant a liberty to the petitioner to move application for expeditious disposal of the appeals before the CIT(A) or before the Higher Authority of the Income Tax Department, which shall take into account the corresponding urgency of the matter(s) and take up the appeals for hearing in accordance with law and the priority which can be assigned to these appeals.
The writ petitions are disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2026/cd 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.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
