$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2450/2025 YKK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu S. Sinha, Mr. Prashant Meharchandani and Ms. Kanika Jain, Advs. versus NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr Anant Mann and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSCs and Ms. Lopamudra Mahapatra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026 CM APPL. 8793/2026 (stay of show cause notice) CM APPL. 8794/2026 (stay of assessment order)

CM APPL. 8795/2026 (Exemption)

1. The matter comes up pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the recovery proceedings, as the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order dated 13.01.2026 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of

1961’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the order dated 27.02.2025 and submitted that not only the impugned assessment order but also the notice for demand dated 13.01.2026 issued under Section 156 of the Act of 1961 of recovery are in the teeth of such order passed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that after the initial order dated 27.02.2025, this Court has modified the interim order on 16.04.2025 and according to the mandate of subsequent order dated 16.04.2025, what has been observed by this Court is that any further order passed would remain subject to the outcome of the present petition.

4. He further submitted that the next date fixed by this Court is

16.02.2026 and therefore, the petitioner should wait till next date.

5. Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after passing the impugned assessment order arbitrarily on 13.01.2026, the Assessing Officer (AO) has also issued demand notice and in case the demand is not deposited within two days thereof (i.e. 13.01.2026), the AO is lightly to take coercive measures and if the same are taken, petitioner’s right would be adversely affected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order dated 16.04.2025 cannot be read dehors the earlier order. Because of the language used in the subsequent order dated 27.02.2025.

7. On Court’s query, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the preparation of reply may take some time and by the next date of hearing i.e.

16.02.2026, the respondents would not be in a position to file the reply.

8. Such being the position, it is apparent that on 16.02.2026, the position as existing today shall continue and petitioner’s stay application shall not be taken into consideration, obviously for want of reply.

9. An interim order staying the recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 13.01.2026 is therefore necessary.

10. It is, therefore, ordered that until the interim order is vacated by the reasoned order, the respondents shall not enforce the recovery pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 13.01.2026.

11. The effect and operation of the order dated 13.01.2026 shall also remain stay, so as to ward off passing of any penalty order and expiry of the limitation of filing appeal, in case this Court ultimately comes to a conclusion that the petitioner should prefer an appeal under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.

12. List this case on 06.05.2026.

13. The next date of hearing (16.02.2026) stands cancelled.

DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026/cd