JANKALYAN VINIMAY PVT LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The 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. The Court noted that the application was filed in September 2018, and the writ petition was filed in July 2021, without any explanation for the delay in approaching the Court, despite the petitioner claiming prejudice from the demand notices issued in 2018. The Court opined that instead of filing a writ petition, the petitioner should have taken steps to expedite the pending appeal arising from the Assessment Order and demand. Therefore, finding no merit, the writ petition was dismissed. The dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from taking steps for the expeditious disposal of its appeal before the Appellate Authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Jankalyan Vinimay Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order and demand notices, as well as the delay in the disposal of its application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application under Section 220(6) was filed in September 2018, and the writ petition was filed in July 2021. The petitioner later submitted that it did not wish to press the legality of the Assessment Orders, as they were under appeal. The petitioner's prayer was then confined to a direction for the Assessing Officer to dispose of the Section 220(6) application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained for a direction upon the Assessing Officer to consider 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. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its Section 220(6) application. The petitioner did not press the legality of the Assessment Orders, as they were subject to appeal. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
27.7.2021 ks WPA 11281 of 2021 sl. 18 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 Order in question and demand notices and also raising grievance against the 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 220(6) 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 11281 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)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026