LAXMI NIWAS SARDA vs. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/234/2023HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01033482202317 October 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 (NFAC) to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal on its merits. The Court acknowledged the submissions from both sides regarding the delay. The reasoning for the decision was based on the facts and circumstances presented, emphasizing the need for timely disposal of pending appeals. The operative direction was for the NFAC to decide the appeal within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order. No specific issue was left undecided; the court's focus was on expediting the appeal process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Laxmi Niwas Sarda, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Respondent No. 2) to decide his pending appeal. The appeal was filed under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, against an order pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed on January 28, 2019, and written submissions were filed on March 1, 2021. The petitioner states that the appeal has not been decided to date. The respondents attributed the delay to the new National Faceless Scheme, stating that records were not transferred or traceable, causing delays in disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in deciding the appeal filed under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is justifiable, considering the introduction of the National Faceless Scheme? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite filing the appeal on January 28, 2019, and submitting written arguments on March 1, 2021, the appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 remained undecided, and the reasons for the delay were not apparent. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (NFAC and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) submitted that the delay was due to the implementation of the National Faceless Scheme, which involved new procedures for hearing appeals. They further stated that issues with record transfer and traceability contributed to the inability to dispose of the petitioner's appeal promptly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 234 of 2023 Laxmi Niwas Sarda S/o Late Shri Ratanlal Sarda, Aged About 79 Years 2, White Church Road, Opp. Aaykar Bhawan, Indore (Mp). Presently R/o. Guru Kripa, Jain School Road, Ward No.19, Wardhman Nagar, P.S. And P.O. And District- Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh Pin-491-441. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Through Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Nafac), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1(1) Room No. 115, Aaykar Bhawan Annex, White Churche Road, Indore (Mp) ---- Respondents For the Petitioner : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Choudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

ORDER 18.10.2023 Heard. 1. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for in the present petition is a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal filed under Section 246A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 at the earliest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appeal was filed against the order of Assessment Year – 2015-16 on 28.1.2019 and on 1.3.2021 written submission was filed but till date, the appeal has not been decided for the reasons best known to respondent No.2.

2 3. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent would submit that on account of new method of hearing i.e. National Faceless Scheme, it takes time and records have not been transferred or traceable, therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be disposed of. 4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition as of now is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to ensure that the appeal of the petitioner which has been filed is considered and decided on its merits in accordance with law as far as possible within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →