AON CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1798/2026HC DelhiDLHC01004621202609 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, acknowledging the peculiar facts of the case, specifically the 12-year pendency of the petitioner's appeal and the fact that it had been heard twice. While not presuming that the Appellate Authority would fail to decide the appeal on the next date, the Court issued a direction to ensure the disposal of the petitioner's appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal either on the next scheduled date of hearing or on any other suitable date, but crucially, within a period of two months from the date of the order (February 9, 2026). The Court emphasized that this order was passed due to the specific circumstances of the case. No issue was left undecided; the core issue of expediting the appeal was addressed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aon Consulting Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi, to decide its appeal. The petitioner stated that its appeal has been pending for 12 years and has been heard on two prior occasions. The petitioner requested the High Court to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its next scheduled date of hearing, February 18, 2026. The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner had approached the court prematurely and there was no reason to believe the appeal would not be decided on the next date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner, considering its pendency for 12 years and prior hearings? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency, turning on the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal has been pending for an inordinate period of 12 years, despite being heard twice, and therefore, the Appellate Authority should be directed to decide it promptly, ideally on the next hearing date. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner's apprehension was unfounded and that there was no basis to assume the appeal would not be decided by the Appellate Authority on the upcoming date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1798/2026 CM APPL. 8708/2026 AON CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Devvrat Tiwari and Mr. Drona Negi, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms. Sakshi Sainwal and Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

09.02.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority-Respondent No.1 viz the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi for the last 12 years and regardless of the fact that the matter has been heard on two occasions. 2. He prayed that the Appellate Authority be directed to decide his appeal at least on the next date, on which it is coming up (18.02.2026). 3. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court only on apprehension and there is no reason why his appeal would not be decided by the Appellate Authority on the next date of hearing. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 12/02/2026 at 13:59:21

submissions made at bar and given that the appeal of the petitioner is pending for the last twelve years and on two occasions the appeal has been heard, though we do not have any reason to presume that the Appellate Authority shall not decide the appeal on the next date of hearing for the sake of ensuring disposal of petitioner’s appeal, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal either on the next date of hearing or on any other suitable date, however within a period of two months from today. 5. We would not have passed the above order, except in view of the facts peculiar to present case, as noted above. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Pending application is also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ss 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 12/02/2026 at 13:59:21

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →