MOBATREE MANUFACTURERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1750/2026HC DelhiDLHC01004459202623 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding its lack of means to deposit the amount was irrelevant to the maintainability of the writ petition and the prayer for stay. The Court emphasized that the remedy of statutory appeal was not only available but had been availed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the arguments sought to be raised by the petitioner were found to be within the realm of factual disputes, which are not amenable to adjudication by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing the petition, the Court directed that if the petitioner's stay application, filed on December 10, 2025, had not been considered, it should be decided within 15 days of placing a certified copy of the order. The pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mobatree Manufacturers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated January 31, 2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner contended that a huge demand had been raised, and as a medium-scale industry, it lacked the liquidity to pay, risking its business. The revenue countered that the petitioner had filed its stay application late, on December 10, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the assessee has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - A huge demand has been raised against the company. - The company, being a medium-scale industry, lacks the necessary liquidity to pay the demand. - Failure to grant indulgence would put the entire business of the petitioner to peril. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioner has already chosen to pursue the appellate proceedings provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. - The petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition since the statutory remedy has been availed. - The petitioner filed its stay application as late as on 10.12.2025, and the Department cannot be blamed for adopting coercive measures if no stay application was filed promptly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1750/2026 CM APPL. 8539/2026 CM APPL. 8540/2026

CM APPL. 8541/2026

MOBATREE MANUFACTURERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Advocate.

versus

ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Std. Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Advocate. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

23.02.2026 O R D E R 1. By way of the present writing petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 31.01.2024 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2022- 23. 2. Ms Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents- Department at the outset submitted that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition simply against an assessment order dated 21.01.2024 that too after having filed an appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal). She submitted that since the petitioner has already chosen to take 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 25/02/2026 at 15:40:38

the appellate proceedings provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot maintain the present writ petition. 3. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that a huge demand has been raised against the petitioner and the company, which is running a medium scale industry, does not have the requisite liquidity to pay the demand. He added that in case, no indulgence is granted, the entire business of the petitioner would be put to peril. 4. Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents in response to such contentions of the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner-assessee has preferred the stay application as late as on 10.12.2025 and submitted that if the petitioner chooses not to file even the stay application, the Department cannot be blamed for having adopted coercive measures. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner’s arguments that it does not have any means to deposit the amount cannot be countenanced. The fact as to whether the petitioner has the means to pay the demand or not is of hardly any relevance, when it comes to the maintainability of writ petition and the prayer of stay is concerned. 7. We are therefore, not inclined to interfere in the present matter, particularly when the remedy of statutory appeal is not only available to the petitioner but the same as a matter of fact has been availed. That apart, the arguments which learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise are all within the realm of factual disputes, which cannot be gone into by this court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 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 25/02/2026 at 15:40:38

9.

While dismissing the writ petition, we would like to observe that in case petitioner’s stay application, which was filed on 10.12.2025, has not taken up for consideration, the same be considered and stay application be decided within 15 days of placing a certified copy of the order instant. 10. The pending application(s) stand disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 23, 2026/dd 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 25/02/2026 at 15:40:38

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →