BALAJI AIR SERVICE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1) CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6381/2026HC DelhiDLHC01020900202611 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court found merit in the revenue's preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court observed that the petitioner had not availed the statutory appeal process. Therefore, the High Court directed the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedies before the Appellate Authority. The Court further provided a concession, stating that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Appellate Authority should consider the delay sympathetically. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaji Air Service, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated 05.02.2026. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi, and another. The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal. Additionally, the revenue contended that the grounds raised by the petitioner before the High Court were not previously raised before the Assessing Officer in response to the reply filed by the respondents. The High Court considered these submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the grounds raised by the petitioner before the High Court were properly raised before the Assessing Officer? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (petitioner) before the High Court, other than the act of filing the writ petition. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal and directly filed a writ petition. The revenue also contended that the grounds presented to the High Court had not been raised before the Assessing Officer in the reply filed by the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6381/2026,CM APPL. 31435/2026 &CM APPL. 31436/2026

BALAJI AIR SERVICE

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Bhimanshu Kansal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1) CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kr. & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

11.05.2026 1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the assessment order dated 05.02.2026. 2. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, at the outset raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has challenged the assessment order directly before this Court, rather than availing statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. 3. He further submitted that the ground which the petitioner has taken before this Court has not been raised before the Assessing Officer pursuant to the reply filed by the respondents. 4. Considering the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Petitioner shall be free to take his 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 14/05/2026 at 12:21:37

statutory remedies before the Appellate Authority. 5. In case the appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Appellate Authority shall consider the delay sympathetically. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, with all pending applications.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. MAY 11, 2026/nk

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 14/05/2026 at 12:21:37

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →