I went to the High Court instead of appealing, and the thirty days under s.15 have gone. Am I out of time?
Not where the High Court protects the position on withdrawal. The Delhi High Court permitted the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to appeal under s.15 of the Black Money Act, and directed that if the appeal is preferred within thirty days the appellate authority shall consider it in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, because the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court.
Decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) on 2026-07-06, reported as W.P.(C) 8719/2026, CM APPL. 40923/2026 and CM APPL. 40924/2026. It bears on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.15(3), section BMA s.15(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
The condonation power in s.15(4) is capped at one year, so time lost in a writ petition can be fatal in a way it is not under the Income-tax Act. Ask for this direction when withdrawing, rather than relying on being able to explain the delay afterwards.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Black Money Act. After arguing for some time, senior counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to prefer an appeal under s.15 of the Act.
Permission was granted. The Court directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal within thirty days from that day, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court (para 2). The writ petition was disposed of with the pending applications (para 4).
The Court gave the direction on the express footing that the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before it, so that the time spent should not be held against him when the appeal is presented to the Commissioner (Appeals).
without raising any objection about the limitation, as the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot where the High Court protects the position on withdrawal. The Delhi High Court permitted the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to appeal under s.15 of the Black Money Act, and directed that if the appeal is preferred within thirty days the appellate authority shall consider it in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, because the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court. This was decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) and bears on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.15(3), section BMA s.15(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 8719/2026, CM APPL. 40923/2026 and CM APPL. 40924/2026. The condonation power in s.15(4) is capped at one year, so time lost in a writ petition can be fatal in a way it is not under the Income-tax Act. Ask for this direction when withdrawing, rather than relying on being able to explain the delay afterwards. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If you withdraw a writ petition against a Black Money Act order, ask in terms for liberty to appeal under s.15 and for a direction excluding the time spent in the Court.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Black Money Act. After arguing for some time, senior counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to prefer an appeal under s.15 of the Act. The matter was decided on 2026-07-06 by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Permission was granted. The Court directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal within thirty days from that day, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court (para 2). The writ petition was disposed of with the pending applications (para 4).
The Court gave the direction on the express footing that the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before it, so that the time spent should not be held against him when the appeal is presented to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "without raising any objection about the limitation, as the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court"
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-07-06 and is reported as W.P.(C) 8719/2026, CM APPL. 40923/2026 and CM APPL. 40924/2026. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section BMA s.15, section BMA s.15(3), section BMA s.15(4), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Permission was granted. The Court directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal within thirty days from that day, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court (para 2). The writ petition was disposed of with the pending applications (para 4). It arises in Appeals matters, on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.15(3), section BMA s.15(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. File the appeal within the period the Court fixes; here it was thirty days from the date of the order. Keep the direction on the file and annex it to the appeal so the objection is not taken at admission. Remember that s.15(4) allows condonation only where the delay does not exceed one year, so a long-running writ petition leaves no room to argue sufficient cause.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 6 July 2026. Nothing applying, doubting or overruling it was located. It is an order made on withdrawal and lays down no principle; its value is as the form of direction to ask for. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order does not identify the order under challenge, the assessment year, the amount or the provision under which the proceedings were taken, and records no reasoning beyond the reason for the direction. The judges are named as Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J in the coram and the signatures, and the court is printed as the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. No reporter citation is printed on the pages read. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Permission was granted. The Court directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal within thirty days from that day, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation, as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy before the Court (para 2). The writ petition was disposed of with the pending applications (para 4).
TaxSphere, “Nikhill Taneja v ADIT (Inv.)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/nikhill-taneja-v-adit-bma-15-time-spent-in-the-writ-petition/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
What are the time limits, forms and fees for an appeal under the Black Money Act, and where do they differ from the Income-tax Act?
I want to appeal a Black Money Act assessment to the Commissioner (Appeals). Is there a pre-deposit, and if so on what amount — the whole demand or only the part I am not disputing?
Can I take an assessment under the Black Money Act straight to the High Court?
My Black Money Act appeal is pending and part of the demand is stayed. Can I stop the penalty proceedings until the appeal is decided?
