THONDERNADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the competent appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeals filed by the petitioner (Exts. P3 and P4) expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed the respondents not to pursue recovery proceedings against the petitioner until such disposal. The Court acknowledged the submissions from both sides regarding the delay and the procedural changes due to the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The primary decision was to ensure the timely adjudication of the pending appeals. The specific merits of the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not decided in this writ petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thondernadu Service Co-operative Society Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The petitioner was subjected to penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16, as evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2. Appeals against these penalty orders were filed before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) in 2018. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the passage of over two years, the appeals remain undecided, and recovery proceedings for the penalty amounts have been initiated. The respondent's counsel stated that due to the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the appeals need to be transferred to the Faceless Appellate Authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in disposing of the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified, considering the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural delays and the application of the Faceless Assessment Scheme). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeals, filed in 2018, have not been disposed of for over two years, and recovery proceedings are being initiated. They seek a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeals. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, submitted that after the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the appeals need to be transferred to the Faceless Appellate Authority, which explains the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. By virtue of Exts.P1 and P2, petitioner was imposed with penalty under Sections 271 D and 271 E respectively for the assessment year 2015-16. Challenging the said penalty orders, appeals have been preferred before the 3rd respondent as early as in 2018. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the lapse of 2 years, the 3rd respondent has not disposed of the appeals and in the meantime, proceedings are initiated to recover the amounts imposed under Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. 2. Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that after the coming into force of Faceless Assessment Scheme, the appeals are required to be heard by the Faceless Appellate Authority and the 3rd respondent will have to transfer the memorandum of appeals to the said appellate assessment centre.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the submissions made by the learned learned Counsel for the WP(C) NO. 30703 OF 2021 3 petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents, I deem it fit to dispose of this writ petition by directing the competent appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeals, filed as Exts.P3 and P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, In view of similar orders passed by this Court, copy of which is produced as Ext.P8, there will be a direction to the respondents not to pursue recovery proceedings against the petitioner, till such disposal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE jm/
WP(C) NO. 30703 OF 2021 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
