Suparshva Swabs (I) v. NFAC
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 246A; 250
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, GP, for UOI Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandey, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA % 1.
prayers:“a) To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to Respondent No.1 directing it that the Petitioner’s Appeal filed on 14.10.2022, which is pending for more than 2 years before the CIT(A), be decided within a period of 4 to 8 weeks; b) To issue guidelines for disposal of pending Appeals and prevent harassment caused to the taxpayers; c) To grant interest and compensatory cost in light of the gross delay of over 2 years in not deciding the appeal filed on 14.10.2022; and/or d) To grant costs of this Petition; and/or Pass such other order(s) as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
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 28/02/2025 at 20:31:37
over the bench, a roadmap drawn by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereafter referred as “NFAC”) to dispose of pending appeals to the tune of 5,49,042 appeals, in a time bound manner as per the Central Action Plan 2024-25. The same is taken on record. 3.
pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged. We expect that the NFAC would endeavour to implement the said remedial measures in all earnest. 4.
filing acknowledgment no.723125090141022 be taken up for consideration and disposed of with expedition not beyond a period of eight weeks from date. 6.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel has handed
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
over the bench, a roadmap drawn by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereafter referred as “NFAC”) to dispose of pending appeals to the tune of 5,49,042 appeals, in a time bound manner as per the Central Action Plan 2024-25. The same is taken on record. 3.
pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged. We expect that the NFAC would endeavour to implement the said remedial measures in all earnest. 4.
filing acknowledgment no.723125090141022 be taken up for consideration and disposed of with expedition not beyond a period of eight weeks from date. 6.
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 28/02/2025 at 20:31:37
Operative decision and relief
filing acknowledgment no.723125090141022 be taken up for consideration and disposed of with expedition not beyond a period of eight weeks from date. 6.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- Advocate versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Delhi High Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—the disputed issue—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 246A, 250. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 246A, 250.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Delhi High Court considered: versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Suparshva Swabs (I)?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, GP, for UOI Mr.
What did the Delhi High Court ultimately decide?
filing acknowledgment no.723125090141022 be taken up for consideration and disposed of with expedition not beyond a period of eight weeks from date. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 246A, 250. The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 246A — 246A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 250 — 250 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 246A, 250 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: Advocate versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 2 |
| SHA-256 | 93f89e1cf31e19a4ab8f4da03a2285f47319105c17683695fbb43797cbb5114f |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |