Nitesh Kumar Jain vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairperson Ministry Of Finance

WP/31468/2025HC Madhya Pradesh10 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI2 pages

For Petitioner: Mudit MaheshwariFor Respondent: Additional Solicitor General[R-1]

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the petitioner's submission regarding the delay to be valid. The court acknowledged the mandate of Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires appeals to be decided within a specified timeframe. Consequently, the court deemed it expedient to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to respondent no. 2. The operative direction is that respondent no. 2 shall decide the pending appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of filing of a copy of the court's order. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeal itself, but rather on the procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nitesh Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, aggrieved by the inaction of respondent no. 2 (an appellate authority) in deciding his appeal filed on August 9, 2021. The petitioner contended that this delay of almost four years was contrary to the statutory mandate. The respondents were represented by their counsel. The court considered the submissions and issued directions regarding the disposal of the pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the inaction of respondent no. 2 in deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner on 09.08.2021 for almost four years is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law, turning on Section 250(6A)) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the inaction of respondent no. 2 is contrary to Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the adjudication of an appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which it was filed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31468 of 2025 NITESH KUMAR JAIN Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Mudit Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harsh Parasar - Advocate with Ms.Yashika Bondwal - Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2 in not deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner on 09.08.2021 for almost four years. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the inaction on the part of respondent no.2 is contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandates adjudication of appeal within a period of one year from the end of financial year in which the appeal was filed. Considering the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner, 1 WP-31468-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36157 Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 10-12-2025 17:26:39 Signature Not Verified

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE we deem it expedient to dispose off the present petition with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the pending appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of filing of the copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed off. RJ

2 WP-31468-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36157 Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 10-12-2025 17:26:39 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →