AON CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court acknowledged the long pendency of the appeals, noting that some had been pending for over seven years. However, the Court declined to issue sweeping directions to interfere with the calendar of the Appellate Authority, particularly in light of the pending MAP proceedings. The Court observed that without awareness of the overall pendency and the number of Appellate Authorities, it could not pass such orders. 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. This application should highlight the urgency, and the authorities are expected to take up the appeals 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 seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appeals pertain to various assessment years, including 2011-12, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The petitioner argued that despite the long pendency of these appeals, some for over five years, the CIT(A) had not heard or decided them, adversely affecting their rights. The revenue contended that the delay was attributable to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which were only decided on December 5, 2023, and also due to the large pendency before the CIT(A) and the petitioner's filing of revised grounds of appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) should be directed to decide the pending appeals expeditiously, considering their long pendency (more than five years for some), and the alleged adverse impact on the petitioner's rights? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principle of speedy justice and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: - The appeals have been pending before the CIT(A) for over five years. - The petitioner has been called by the CIT(A) on multiple occasions. - 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 is due to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings under the US-India Treaty, which concluded on December 5, 2023. - The CIT(A) has a large pendency, leading to delays. - The petitioner filed revised grounds of appeal on June 10, 2025, contributing to the delay. - 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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
