Komal Pawan Tekchandani vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through Its Chairperson

PDF · subscribers
WP/3456/2024HC Madhya Pradesh16 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI3 pages
For Petitioner: Kanishka GuptaFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed Respondent No. 2, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner forthwith and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court emphasized that the decision should be a reasoned and speaking order and communicated to the petitioner promptly. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The principle derived is that courts can direct authorities to decide pending matters within a reasonable timeframe, especially when statutory timelines are exceeded and significant delays are observed, without delving into the merits of the underlying appeal. The operative direction is to decide the appeal expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Komal Pawan Tekchandani, is challenging an assessment order dated December 29, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Officer-1(3), Indore, for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessment determined her income at Rs. 1,37,83,010/- and imposed penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and 271-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A demand of Rs. 85,09,360/- was raised. The petitioner appealed this order on January 23, 2018, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore. Due to amendments introducing a faceless appeal system, the appeal was transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner submitted written submissions on March 26, 2018, and again on January 29, 2021, after being called upon by Respondent No. 2. The appeal was heard two months prior to the filing of this writ petition, but no final order has been passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Respondent No. 2 is obligated to decide the pending application of the petitioner within a time-bound manner, considering the delay since 2018 and the provisions of Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal has been pending since 2018, has been heard, and reserved for judgment, causing injustice. She contended that the outer limit prescribed under Section 250(6A) of the Act for deciding appeals is one year, which has been exceeded. Therefore, a direction should be issued to decide the appeal forthwith. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 271-F,Section 156,Section 246-A,Section 250,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 SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 3456 of 2024 BETWEEN:- KOMAL PAWAN TEKCHANDANI W/O SHRI PAWAN TEKCHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER 402, KALPANA APARTMENT, 7-8SOUTH TUKOGANJ INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI MUDIT MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI) 2. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER THROUGH PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUHGT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI (DELHI) .....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. VEENA MANDLIK, ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following: ORDER Heard on the question of admission. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending application filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. 1 Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 2/17/2024 3:18:00 PM Signature Not Verified 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Income Tax Officer 1(3) Indore vide Assessment order dated 29.12.2017 assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,37,83,010/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Ten Only) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and imposed penalties under Section 271 (1)(b) and 271-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer- 1(3) Indore vice Notice of Demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2017 demanded Rs. 85,09,360/- towards tax. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal on 23.01.2018 against the Assessment order dated 29.12.2017 under Section 246-A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore. The notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 09.08.2019 was issued and the petitioner appeared accordingly. However, in the meanwhile the Income Tax Act was amended vide Finance Act, 2020 whereby Sub-clause (6B) was inserted in Section 250 of the Act, thereby authorising the Central Government to frame a scheme for disposal of appeals through faceless system. Since no order was passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Indore in the Appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre. 4. The Respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 25.01.2021 called upon the petitioner to submit written submissions on or before 29.01.2021. The petitioner informed that the written submissions were already submitted on 26.03.2018 alongwith paper book before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Indore. However, written submissions were again submitted by the petitioner on 29.01.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the appeal 2 Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 2/17/2024 3:18:00 PM Signature Not Verified (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE has been heard two months back, however no final order has been passed which is causing great injustice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, direction may be issued to decide the appeal forthwith. Moreover, the outer limit as prescribed under Section 250 (6A) of the Act, the appeals are required to be decided within a period of one year whereas in the present case the appeal is pending since 2018. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the fact that the appeal is pending since 2018 and has been heard and reserved for judgment. In such a situation, the Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal forthwith as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The order be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 7. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is finally disposed off with the aforesaid direction. Vatan

3 Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 2/17/2024 3:18:00 PM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →