BOANG TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15187/2025HC DelhiDLHC01075015202526 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand, approximately Rs. 1.65 crores, on or before 03.10.2025. Upon receipt of the deposit and a copy of the challan, the attached bank accounts would be immediately released. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) by way of an application challenging the AO's order within the same period, i.e., on or before 03.10.2025. The CIT would then consider the aspect of the balance 80% of the amount. All rights and contentions of both parties were kept open to be canvassed before the CIT. The court warned that a serious view would be taken if the 20% deposit was not made within the stipulated time.

What were the facts?

The assessee, BOANG TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 24.09.2025, and an order dated 23.09.2025 rejecting its request for a stay of demand. The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the stay application and subsequently directed HDFC Bank to attach thirteen bank accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the attachment would cause prejudice as it needs to pay salaries and statutory dues. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 30, Delhi, stated that the accounts would be released upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the order rejecting the stay application are liable to be quashed. Assessee's contention: The AO rejected the stay application on 23.09.2025 and, without granting time to approach the CIT, proceeded to direct the attachment of bank accounts on 24.09.2025. This action is prejudicial to the petitioner, which needs to meet its salary and statutory payment obligations. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash these actions. Revenue's contention: The respondent stated that upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the demand, the attached accounts would be de-attached and released.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C)-15187/2025 Page 1 of 3

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 26.09.2025

+ W.P.(C) 15187/2025

BOANG TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Himanshu S. Sinha, Mr. Prashant

Meherchandani and Ms. Kanika Jain,

Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL

CIRCLE 30, DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy

Jain, JSC, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSC,

Mr. Anshuman Jindal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 62253/2025(exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15187/2025 3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other

writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing

the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act,

1961 dated 24.09.2025 and order rejecting the request

for stay of demand dated 23.09.2025 passed by

respondent;

C. Issue any other Writ, Order, or Direction which this Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:27.09.2025 11:24:30 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)-15187/2025 Page 2 of 3

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and/or in the interest of equity,

justice and good conscience;

D. To dispense with from filing certified copies of

Annexures; and

E. To allow the writ petition with cost in favor of the

Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

4.

This petition has been listed through a supplementary list circulated in the pre-lunch session on being mentioned before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 5. The challenge is primarily to the order of the learned Assessing Officer (AO), whereby the learned AO has while considering the request of the petitioner for stay rejected the application for stay of the petitioner. Thereafter, the AO issued a communication dated 24.09.2025 to the HDFC Bank calling upon the Bank to attach the thirteen bank accounts of the petitioner herein. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the impugned order having been passed on 23.09.2025 whereby, the stay application was rejected, the AO without granting any time to the petitioner to file the application before the CIT has directed the bank to attach/freeze the thirteen accounts. According to him, the petitioner has to pay salary to its employees and there are some statutory dues which need to be paid on different dates and as such the freezing/ attachment of the accounts need to be withdrawn otherwise it shall cause great prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned SSC for the respondent appears on advance notice and has taken instructions from the officer concerned. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:27.09.2025 11:24:30 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)-15187/2025 Page 3 of 3

According to him, that on the petitioner depositing twenty percent of the demand, the thirteen accounts which have been attached/frozen by the respondent authority shall be de-attached/released and the communication in this regard shall be sent to the Bank. 8. If that be so, the twenty percent of the demand shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Government on or before 03.10.2025 and a communication/copy of Challan shall be forwarded to the AO forthwith. In order to enable the petitioner deposit the twenty percent of the demand, which according to counsel for the petitioner is Rs.1.65 crores (approximately), the bank accounts which have been attached shall be released/ de-attached immediately on receipt of this order. 9. Liberty is with the appellant to approach the CIT by way of an application challenging the order of the AO within a period of one week that is on or before 03.10.2025 which shall be considered by the CIT on the aspect of balance eighty percent of the amount. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be canvassed before the CIT. 10. It is made clear if the twenty percent of the demand as directed to be deposited within one week, is not made, serious view shall be taken. 11. The petition be disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/rt Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:27.09.2025 11:24:30 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →