SANJIT SINGH RANDHAWA vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9724/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01053928202505 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated December 30, 2019, for the assessment year 2018-2019, had been pending for approximately five years with no progress. The Court referred to Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which stipulates that Commissioners (Appeals) may, where possible, hear and decide appeals within one year from the end of the financial year in which the appeal is filed. While acknowledging the phrase "where it is possible," the Court emphasized the legislature's intent for timely disposal of appeals. Citing a previous order in a similar case (Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others), where directions were issued for the disposal of a decade-old pending appeal, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjit Singh Randhawa, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide his appeal, filed on January 20, 2020, against an assessment order dated December 30, 2019. The assessment year in question is 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that despite the appeal being filed over five years prior, it remained undecided. The respondents, including the Central Board of Direct Taxes, did not oppose the petitioner's request for a time-bound decision. The High Court noted the significant delay and the lack of progress in the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within a specified timeframe, considering the delay of over five years since its filing on January 20, 2020, against an assessment order dated December 30, 2019, for the assessment year 2018-2019. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal, filed on January 20, 2020, has not been decided to date, and therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) should be directed to decide it in a time-bound manner. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 05, 2025 SANJIT SINGH RANDHAWA

.....PETITIONER V/S THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sachit Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, for the respondents-Income Tax Department. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 in a time bound manner.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 on 20.01.2020 before respondent No. 2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) and till date, the same has not been decided. He, therefore, prays for directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the present case.

5.

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner filed an appeal against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for the assessment year 2018-2019 on 20.01.2020 i.e. almost 5 years back and till date, there is no progress in the proceedings.

6.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down the procedure to be followed in appeal, which is reproduced as under:- “250 (6A) 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.”

7.

A bare perusal of above-referred to provision shows the intention of the legislature since it has been specifically mentioned that 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. It is evident that although the expression “where it is possible” has been used, the intent of legislature unequivocally is in favour of time bound disposal of appeals. PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

8.

The petitioner has drawn attention to an earlier order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6388 of 2025 titled as Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others, wherein, it was observed by this Court that the appeal was filed in the year 2015 i.e. almost about 10 years back and was not decided, which forced the petitioner therein to file CWP No. 6388 of 2025, where this Court was constrained to issue directions for disposal of the appeal that had been pending for nearly a decade within a period of six months.

9.

In the present writ petition, again the petitioner filed the appeal in the year 2020 i.e. 5 years back and till date, there is no progress.

10.

Therefore, in view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11.

All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE April 05, 2025

pj

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →