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 have been pending for over seven years. However, the Court declined to interfere with the appellate authority's calendar or issue sweeping directions, especially considering the pendency of MAP proceedings. The Court noted that without awareness of the appellate authority's pendency relative to the number of authorities, it could not pass such directions. Instead, 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. Such an application should highlight the urgency and request the appeals to be taken up for hearing in accordance with law and assigned priority. The Court did not decide 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 challenging the prolonged pendency of their appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The assessment years involved range from 2011-12 to 2017-18. The petitioner argued that their appeals have been pending for over five years, causing adverse effects on their rights, despite multiple hearings being called by the CIT(A). The revenue contended that the delay was attributable to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which concluded on December 5, 2023, and the petitioner's filing of revised grounds of appeal on June 10, 2025. The petitioner countered that MAP pendency does not preclude the CIT(A) from proceeding with appeals.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) should be directed to expeditiously decide the pending appeals of the petitioner, considering their pendency for over five years, and if so, what directions are appropriate? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principles of natural justice and timely disposal of appeals). Assessee's Contentions: - The appeals have been pending before the CIT(A) for more than five years. - Despite being called by the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, the appeals have not been heard or decided. - The long pendency has adversely affected the petitioner's rights. - There is no embargo on the Appellate Authority proceeding with the matter even if MAP proceedings are pending; the effect of MAP orders could be given later. Revenue's Contentions: - The delay in deciding the appeals was primarily due to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which concluded on December 5, 2023. - The CIT(A) could not proceed with the appeals due to the pendency of MAP proceedings. - The CIT(A) faces a large pendency, leading to delays. - The petitioner filed revised grounds of appeal on June 10, 2025, contributing to the delay.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
