Anya Traders Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by MS Anya Traders challenging the assessment order dated 24.03.2026, holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner required examination of facts and evidence by the statutory Appellate Authority rather than exercise of the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner contended that the assessment order suffered from a manifest error of law because the Assessing Officer had made additions relating to certain transactions which, according to the petitioner, did not pertain to the assessment year in question. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, however, the High Court observed that the petitioner had effectively sought to convert the writ court into an appellate forum for appreciation of facts and evidence.
The Court held that the grievance raised by the petitioner and the arguments advanced before it were matters required to be urged before the Appellate Authority, which was specifically constituted and empowered by law to examine such issues. The Court consequently found no case warranting interference in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition.
At the same time, the High Court protected the petitioner’s right to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. It directed that if the petitioner preferred an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority should consider the appeal on merits without raising any objection regarding limitation. The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Anya Traders Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
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 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.
