Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.

W.P.(C)/11422/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. as the petitioners, who challenged an order dated 17.03.2025 under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order rejected their application for compounding due to defaults in TDS payments for the financial years 2012-13 to 2024-25. The Union of India & Ors. were the respondents, represented by Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Senior Standing Counsel. The court found no merit in the petitioner's repeated adjournment requests and upheld the rejection of the compounding application, citing the petitioner's ongoing defaults in TDS payments as a valid reason.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842431 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIPUL AGRAWAL; SAKSHI SHAIRWAL; AKSHAT SINGH; GAORAANG RANJAN; HARSHITA KOTRU
• Keywords: Adjournment; Compounding; Income Tax; TDS default
• Section: 279(2)

Judgement Text

"$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11422/2025 CM APPL. 46742/2025 CM APPL. 52006/2025 M/S RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs, Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR % 23.02.2026 O R D E R 1. On perusal of the order sheets of this case, we find that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other. 2. Even today, nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.03.2025, passed under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Financial Years 2012-13 to 2024-25, whereby the application seeking compounding has been rejected. 4. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner has been defaulting in payment of 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 25/02/2026 at 15:41:36 Printed from counselvise.com the TDS and since the competent authority has passed the detailed and well considered order dated 17.03.2025, no interference is warranted. 5. Having heard Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent and on going through the record and the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, we are of the view that since the petitioner has been defaulting in payment of TDS, its application for compounding has rightly been rejected. 6. In any case, compounding is also a matter of discretion and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right, unless the impugned order is unreasoned or without application of mind. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed along with pending application(s). DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 23, 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 25/02/2026 at 15:41:36 Printed from counselvise.com "