DR. ALLAUDDIN FARISHTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WPT/206/2024HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01040914202401 December 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Respondent No. 1) to consider and decide the pending appeals, filed in Form No. 35 bearing ARN No. 182387510220424, within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This direction was given keeping in mind that the appeal was preferred on April 22, 2024. The Court considered the limited grievance of the petitioner. No specific findings on the merits of the appeal were made, as the order focuses on procedural direction. The ratio is that statutory appeals should be decided within a reasonable time, and courts can direct authorities to expedite the process when there is undue delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Allauddin Farishta, filed statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on April 22, 2024. The petitioner's grievance is that these appeals have not yet been considered and decided by the competent authority. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, did not raise any objection to the petitioner's submissions. The case is before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a direction should be issued to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the pending appeals within a stipulated period of time, considering the appeals were preferred on April 22, 2024. The petitioner argued that a direction is necessary for the timely disposal of their appeals. The revenue did not raise any objection to this submission.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 / 2 2024:CGHC:47278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 206 of 2024 1 - Dr. Allauddin Farishta S/o Late Rajabali Farishta Aged About 75 Years R/o Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner versus 1 - Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Through National Faceless Appeal Centre, Room

No.

245-A,

North

Block,

New

Delhi. 2 - National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Its Competent Authority, Income Tax Department, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. 3 - Office Of Income Tax Officer, Through Income Tax Officer, Civil Lines, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri

Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board 02/12/2024

1.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that they have preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)

2 / 2 on 22.04.2024, but the same have not been considered and decided by the competent authority till date.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be issued to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the pending appeals within the stipulated period of time as the appeals were preferred on 22.04.2024. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised no objection to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

5.

Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no. 1, i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and decide the pending appeals filed in Form No. 35 bearing ARN No. 182387510220424 within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order keeping in mind the fact that the appeal was preferred on 22.04.2024. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stand disposed of.

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Madhurima

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →