HARISH VERMA vs. THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2631/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01016258202609 February 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal, which was remanded by the ITAT on 27.11.2019, was unnecessary and not appreciated. The Court directed the competent authority, which is now responsible for finally deciding the petitioner's appeal, to do so within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the 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 principle established is that undue procedural delays in deciding tax appeals are not to be countenanced, and courts can direct authorities to expedite such decisions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harish Verma, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, via an assessment order dated 31.08.2016. His statutory appeal against this order was dismissed by respondent No. 4 on 27.03.2018. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A', through an order dated 27.11.2019, remitted the matter back to respondent No. 4 for a fresh decision. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, as his appeal had remained undecided for over six years following the ITAT's remand order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal, filed against the assessment order dated 31.08.2016 and remanded by the ITAT on 27.11.2019, is justifiable and in accordance with law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his appeal had remained undecided for over six years since the ITAT's remand order, and he sought a direction for its timely disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the presence of Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department indicates their participation in the proceedings.

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

126

CWP-2631-2026

Date of Decision:09.02.2026

HARISH VERMA

....PETITIONER

Versus THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel

for the respondents-Income Tax Department.

***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Through assessment order dated 31.08.2016, 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.

4.

On the dismissal of such appeal on 27.03.2018, the petitioner then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for short-the Tribunal) which through its order dated 27.11.2019 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 27.11.2019 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. PRINCE SAINI 2026.02.12 08:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2631-2026

-2-

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 31.08.2016 after its remand by the Tribunal on 27.11.2019 has been unnecessarily delayed which delay we do not 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

09.02.

2026

[LAPITA BANERJI] Prince

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No

PRINCE SAINI 2026.02.12 08:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →