JANKALYAN VINIMAY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/11272/2021HC CalcuttaWBCHCA021346202127 July 2021Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition for a direction upon the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Act, which was filed in September 2018. The Court noted that the petitioner filed the writ petition in July 2021 without explaining the delay in approaching the Court, especially if the petitioner was prejudiced by the demand notices raised in 2018. The Court opined that instead of filing a writ petition, the petitioner should have taken steps to expedite the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, which arose out of the impugned assessment order and demand. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it was dismissed. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to take suitable steps for the expeditious disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jankalyan Vinimay Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders and demand notices. The petitioner also raised a grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of its application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Assessing Officer. However, the petitioner subsequently stated that it did not wish to press the legality of the assessment orders in the writ petition, as these were already under appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's prayer was then confined to seeking a direction for the Assessing Officer to dispose of its application filed under Section 226 of the Act, relating to the relevant assessment year. The writ petition was filed in July 2021, concerning an application filed in September 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed in September 2018, when the writ petition was filed in July 2021 without explaining the delay. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 220(6) and principles of writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its application filed under Section 226 of the Act. (Note: The judgment later refers to Section 220(6) in the context of the application, and Section 226 in the prayer for direction. The analysis assumes the core issue relates to the pending application and the delay in its disposal). Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6),Section 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

27.7.2021 ks WPA 11272 of 2021 sl. 17 Jankalyan Vinimay Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kolkata & Ors. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ms. B. Manot, … For the Petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Mr. Manabendranath Bandopahdyay … For the Respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made several prayers and challenging the impugned Assessment Orders in question and demand notices and also raising grievance against sitting over its application filed before the respondent/Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Now, the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press the legality of Assessment Orders in this writ petition since those are the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner’s prayer is now confined to the relief of directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the petitioner’s application under Section 226 of the Act relating to the relevant Assessment Year. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the relief of direction upon the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner’s application under Section 220(6) of the Act, which was filed in September, 2018

2 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition in July, 2021 without explaining the delay in approaching this Court, if at all the petitioner was so seriously prejudiced by the demand notices raised in 2018. Instead of approaching this Writ Court, the petitioner should have taken steps for expediting the pending appeal in question arising out of the impugned Assessment Order and the demand. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, this writ petition being WPA 11272 of 2021 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from taking suitable steps for expeditious disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →