SADR ANJUMAN AHMADDIYA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, after perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for both parties, noted that the appeal has been pending since 28.05.2021, and there has been no progress in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court also directed that pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. The principle established is that courts can issue writs of Mandamus to ensure timely disposal of quasi-judicial proceedings when there is undue delay and lack of progress, provided the other party does not oppose such a direction.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) to expeditiously decide their appeal. The appeal was filed on 28.05.2021. The petitioner contended that they received notices under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13.02.2024 and 12.07.2024, requiring them to furnish ground-wise written submissions and supporting documents. The petitioner claims to have responded to these notices on 17.05.2024 and 19.07.2024, respectively, and again on 11.10.2024 in response to a notice dated 26.09.2024. Despite multiple submissions, the petitioner alleged that the appeal had not been decided by the CIT(A). The respondent, represented by the Senior Panel Counsel, did not oppose the petitioner's request for a time-bound decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to expeditiously decide the pending appeal of the petitioner, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal, filed on 28.05.2021, has been pending for an inordinate period. They highlighted receiving multiple notices under Section 250 of the Act, to which they have repeatedly submitted responses and documents. Despite these efforts, the appeal remains undecided, necessitating judicial intervention for a time-bound disposal. They relied on the general principle of expeditious disposal of appeals. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent did not oppose the request made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for a direction to decide the appeal in a time-bound manner.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order. nding application(s), if any, also LLI)
hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable
: Y -2- eference to the previous reply da in received the same notice un ng the same documents, to wh The petitioner again replied to e, therefore, contends that desp f the Act thrice, the appeal has Tax Appeals. She, therefore, pr -Appellate Authority to decide t does not oppose the request m r the parties and perused the wh that the appeal is pending si he proceedings. writ petition is disposed of wit Income Tax Appeals to decide six months from the date of rece stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Speaking Yes
ated nder hich the pite not rays the made hole nce th a the eipt TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.21 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
