ADESH TYAGI & ANR vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA

PDF · subscribers

W.P.(C)/2043/2006HC DelhiDLHC01071855200612 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court accepted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the ITAT appeal, in which the ex-parte order was passed, had been decided on merits. Additionally, the Court noted that an appeal filed by the Department against the ITAT's order was pending before the High Court. Given these developments, the Court found no reason to proceed with the writ petition seeking to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, while also stating that the petitioners were free to apply for revival if any grievance still subsisted. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition and interlocutory applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Adesh Tyagi & Anr, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order, dated July 12, 2018 (ITA No. 1492/Del/2005), was passed in an appeal filed by the company in which the petitioners are directors. The Revenue informed the Court that the ITAT appeal itself had been decided on merits. Furthermore, an appeal filed by the Department against the ITAT's order (ITA No. 403/2019) was pending before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue argued that the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition seeking to set aside an ex-parte order of the ITAT has become infructuous, given that the underlying ITAT appeal was decided on merits and a further appeal by the Revenue is pending before the High Court? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the filing of the writ petition implies a grievance regarding the ex-parte order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel Mr. Vipul Agrawal, argued that the writ petition had become infructuous because the ITAT appeal, which was the subject of the ex-parte order, had subsequently been decided on merits. They also highlighted that an appeal by the Department against the ITAT's order was pending before the High Court. The Revenue relied on the fact that the primary issue of the ITAT's decision was now being considered by the Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ADESH TYAGI & ANR .....Petitioners

Through: Ms Aabginal Chisht, Adv.

versus

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs, Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advs. Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Advs. for R2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

12.01.2026 O R D E R 1. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Income Tax Department informed that present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside of the ex-parte order, passed by the Tribunal in the appeal listed by the company, in which they are directors. He submitted that said appeal itself has been decided by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) on merit, vide its order dated 12.07.2018 (being ITA No. 1492/Del/2005). 2. He added that an appeal there-against filed by the Department being 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 16/01/2026 at 13:25:55

ITA No. 403/2019 is pending consideration of this Court. 3. He therefore, submitted that the present writ petition qua which the petitioners have sought setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings, has been rendered infructuous. 4. In view of the statement so made by Mr. Agrawal, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 5. Needless to observe that if any of the petitioners’ grievance still subsists, they shall be free to apply for revival of the writ petition. 6. Writ petition so also interlocutory applications stands disposed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J JANUARY 12, 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 16/01/2026 at 13:25:55

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →