MS ANYA TRADERS vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6633/2026HC DelhiDLHC01021603202614 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner was attempting to convert the writ jurisdiction into an appellate forum for appreciating facts and evidence. The Court found that the grievances raised and arguments presented were matters that should be addressed before the statutory Appellate Authority, which is empowered by law to hear such appeals. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case did not warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed. However, to provide relief, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks, the Appellate Authority should consider it on its merits without raising any objections regarding limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MS ANYA TRADERS, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The petitioner contended that the AO made additions to income related to transactions that did not pertain to the assessment year under review. The High Court of Delhi observed that the petitioner appeared to be attempting to use the Court as an appellate forum for factual appreciation. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievances and arguments were matters to be raised before the appropriate appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.03.2026 suffers from a manifest error of law, specifically concerning additions made for transactions not relating to the assessment year in question, thereby warranting interference by the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was erroneous because the Assessing Officer included additions pertaining to transactions that did not fall within the relevant assessment year. The petitioner sought to have this error rectified by the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Income Tax Department).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6633/2026 CM APPL. 32612/2026 CM APPL. 32613/2026

MS ANYA TRADERS .....Petitioner Through: Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Ashima Acharya, Advs.

versus

ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Mr. V. K. Saksena, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

14.05.2026 O R D E R 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 24.03.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned assessment order suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as the Assessing Officer (AO) has made additions in relation to certain transactions, which do not relate to the assessment year in question. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner for some time, we are of the view that the petitioner has literally tried to convert this Court in an Appellate Forum, that too for appreciating the facts and evidence. 4. We are of the view that the grievance, which the petitioner has raised 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 16/05/2026 at 12:41:30

and the arguments which have been canvassed at the bar are required to be advanced before the Appellate Authority, which is meant for and empowered by the law so to do. 5. We do not find it to be a case worth warranting interference of this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. In case petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merit without raising any objection of limitation. 8. The petition along with the pending application(s) is disposed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 14, 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 16/05/2026 at 12:41:30

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →