GURCHARAN DHIMAN vs. THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30584/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158246202618 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the decision on the petitioner's appeal, filed against the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 and subsequently remanded by the ITAT on 05.07.2019, had been unnecessarily delayed. The Court expressed its disapproval of this delay. Consequently, the Court directed the authority now competent to finally decide the petitioner's appeal to do so within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original assessment or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay. The ratio decidendi is that excessive and unexplained delay in deciding tax appeals after remand warrants High Court intervention to ensure timely justice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurcharan Dhiman, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, via an assessment order dated 29.12.2017. This order was challenged through a statutory appeal, which was dismissed on 28.12.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which, by an order dated 05.07.2019, remitted the matter back to respondent No.4 for a fresh decision. As the petitioner's appeal remained undecided for over six years following the ITAT's remand order, he filed the present writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction for the expeditious decision of his appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal, which was remanded by the ITAT on 05.07.2019, is justified, and if not, what directions should be issued? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and timely disposal of appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his appeal, remanded by the ITAT on 05.07.2019, had remained undecided for over six years, necessitating intervention by the High Court to direct a time-bound decision. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the respondents appeared, but their specific contentions regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.130 CWP-30584-2026 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Gurcharan Dhiman ..... Petitioner Versus The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present : Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. 1. Through assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the petitioner was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short-the Act) which order was challenged by the petitioner through filing of a statutory appeal before respondent No.5. On the dismissal of such appeal on 28.12.2018, the petitioner then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for short-the Tribunal) which through its order dated 05.07.2019 remitted the matter back to respondent No.4 for deciding the matter afresh. 2. Since for over 6 years the petitioner's appeal, in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 05.07.2019 remained undecided, he has approached this Court through the instant petition, seeking issuance of a direction to the competent authority to decide his aforesaid appeal, in a time bound manner. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that the decision on the petitioner's appeal filed against the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 after its remand by the Tribunal on 05.07.2019 has been unnecessarily delayed which delay we do not JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-30584-2026 -2- appreciate. Accordingly, we direct the authority, which is now competent to finally decide the petitioner's aforesaid appeal, to do the needful within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. 4. Disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 18.09.2026 (SUNISH BINDLISH) Jyoti 1

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →