Chaitram Alonkar vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I

PDF · subscribers
WP/10932/2023HC Madhya Pradesh14 July 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU4 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that when a statutory appeal is preferred by an assessee, it is mandatory for the appellate authority to decide it as per Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the prescribed time period for deciding an appeal is generally one year from its filing, and the petitioner's appeal had been pending for over four and a half years. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the writ petition pending and therefore disposed of it with specific directions. The Revenue was directed to ensure that the petitioner's appeal is decided expeditiously, within an outer limit of four months from the date of the order. The Court clarified that other grounds raised by the petitioner were not decided and would remain open for him to raise if occasion arises and the law permits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chaitram Alonkar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur challenging the delay in the decision of his appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment order was dated 27.12.2018, and the appeal was filed online on 31.01.2019 before the CIT, Jabalpur. The appeal was subsequently transferred to CIT (Appeal)-3, Bhopal. The petitioner argued that the appeal had been pending for over four and a half years without a decision. The Revenue, in its reply, indicated that steps were being taken to transfer the appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for its disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of an appeal pending before the appellate authority, given the statutory timelines for deciding appeals? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal, filed on 31.01.2019, had been pending for over four and a half years, which is an unreasonable delay and warrants judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated that efforts were underway to transfer the appeal to the NFAC and that the appellate authority would take up the case soon. They initially sought an adjournment but were declined.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6A),Section 246,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 10932 of 2023 BETWEEN:- CHAITRAM ALONKAR S/O LATE JAIDEV ALONKAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL/ PENSIONER R/O 132 NEAR MATA MANDIR BARARIPURA CHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE - ADVOCATE ) AND 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I AAYAKAR BHAWAN NAPIER TOWN JABAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER CHHINDWARA WARD 1 CHHINDWARA SHARDA SABURI BHAWAN NAGPUR ROAD CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SHUBHAM MANCHANI - ADVOCATE & SHRI MAYANK UPADHYA ON BEHALF OF SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR INCOME TAX) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: ORDER Heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal. 1 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 18-07-2023 14:26:58 Signature Not Verified 2. Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate and Shri Mayank Upadhay - proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Siddharth Sharma - Junior Standing Counsel submits that counsel for Revenue is adjusted today and also points out that petitioner has moved an application for impleadment of NFAC and CIT, Bhopal as party. 3. Looking to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner which is merely for a direction to decide the appeal pending before CIT (Appeal)- 3, Bhopal which is pending since 31.01.2019, the prayer for adjournment made by Revenue is declined. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the matter. 4. The undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order of assessment dated 27.12.2018 (Annexure P/2) preferred an appeal on 31.01.2019 (Annexure P/3) filed online before CIT, Jabalpur. 4.1 Since the appeal was pending and not decided for quite sometime, this petition has been filed. 5. The Revenue has come out with the return which inter alia discloses thus : 27. Reply to Para 8: A letter was written to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Bhopal on 06.01.2023 requesting him to approach the NFAC for transfer to appeal to his office. Further, a letter has been written to the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, New Delhi requesting him to kindly direct the concerned CIT (Appeals) Unit to take up the case. 6. From the response of Revenue, it appears that the appeal is going to be taken up soon by the competent appellate authority. 7. The counsel for petitioner also informs that the appeal of petitioner has 2 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 18-07-2023 14:26:58 Signature Not Verified since been transferred from CIT (Appeal), Jabalpur to CIT (Appeal)- 3, Bhopal. 8. Be that as it may, if a statutory appeal is preferred by an assessee aggrieved by an assessment order, the same is required to be mandatorily decided by the appellate authority as per Section 250 (6A) which is reproduced below : "In every appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him under sub-section (1) or transferred to him under sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of Section 246 or filed before him under sub-section (1) of section 246A, as the case may be" 9. In view of above, the time period prescribed by the statute for deciding an appeal in ordinary circumstances is about one year from its filing. The instant appeal filed on 31.01.2019 is pending since the last more than four and a half years. 10. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose shall be served to keep this petition pending and therefore, the same is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The Revenue is directed to ensure that the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3, is decided as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of four months from today. (ii) This Court hastens to add that the other grounds raised by the petitioner have not been taken up or decided and shall be open for the petitioner to raise if any occasion arises and if law permits. 3 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 18-07-2023 14:26:58 Signature Not Verified (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Shub

4 Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 18-07-2023 14:26:58 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →