CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4-2 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2836/2025HC DelhiDLHC01011526202508 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner's grievance was merited due to the inordinate delay in addressing its appeal. The Court noted the revenue's submission that the delay was attributable to the transfer of the appeal among various authorities and that the appeal was currently with CIT(A)-44, which was in the process of gathering documents. The Court found it appropriate not to pass any order on the merits of the assessment but to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Casio India Company Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated May 15, 2013, for Assessment Year 2009-10, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on May 31, 2013, but it remained undecided. The revenue had recovered the entire demand by adjusting refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years, totaling INR 52,44,900, INR 1,84,81,000, and INR 84,95,160, with a voluntary payment of INR 34,36,000. The petitioner's appeal had been heard by various authorities since 2013 without a final order being passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal before the CIT(A) is inordinate and warrants intervention by the High Court? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely disposal of appeals under the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there has been an inordinate delay in the disposal of its appeal filed in 2013, and the revenue has already recovered the entire demand by adjusting refunds for subsequent years. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the assessment order or a writ of mandamus to direct the disposal of the pending appeal within two months. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, on instructions, stated that the delay was due to the appeal being transferred to various authorities. It was submitted that the appeal was currently with CIT(A)-44, which had made a reference to predecessor authorities for documents. The revenue assured that the petitioner would be heard and the appeal would be decided shortly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 246,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 2836/2025

Page 1 of 4

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 2836/2025

CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Arun Bhadauria and Mr. Purv Medhira, Advocates

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4-2 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 15.05.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 as being bad in law and to issue consequent refunds along with statutory interest.

(ii) Alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to dispose the pending appeal preferred under Section 246/246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within a period of 2 months.”

2.

The petitioner had filed its return of income for Assessment Year Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.05.2025 16:36:26 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2836/2025

Page 2 of 4

[AY] 2009-2010. The same was picked up for scrutiny. The assessment proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 15.05.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 (C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 31.05.2013. 4. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the said appeal has not been decided as yet. To compound the petitioner’s grievance, the entire demand has been recovered by adjusting the refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years. The tabular statement of recovery of demand set out in the present petition is reproduced below:

Date Amount Remarks Challan 1. INR 52,44,900 Adjustment of demand + interest with the refund of AY 2021-22 Challan No.8380 dated 04.04.2024 2. INR 1,84,81,000 Adjustment of demand + interest with the refund of AY 2021-22 Challan No.7749 dated 04.04.2024 3. INR 84,95,160 Adjustment of demand + interest with the refund of AY 2010-11 Challan No.6728 dated 30.03.2024 4. INR 34,36,000 Payment of 20% of the demand voluntarily Challan No.4976 dated 13.03.2019

5.

The petitioner further states that the petitioner’s appeal has been heard by various authorities at different points of time but the final order has not been passed as yet. It is apposite to reproduce the tabular statement set out by the petitioner indicating the dates of hearing and the authorities that had heard the petitioner. The same is reproduced below: Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.05.2025 16:36:26 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2836/2025

Page 3 of 4

Sr. No. Date Authority Remarks 1. 31.05.2013 Appeal filed against the final assessment order dated 15.05.2013 before the CIT(A) under Section 246/246A of the Act Filing acknowledgment bears the stamp of 06.06.2013 2. 29.07.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing Appeals)-XX (signed by Usha Gupta) Hearing fixed for 14.08.2013. No final order passed post the hearing 3. 25.10.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-42 (signed by Satpal Gulati) Hearing fixed for 15.11.2018. No final order passed post the hearing 4. 15.01.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-42 (signed by Satpal Gulati) Hearing fixed for 06.02.2019. No final order passed post the hearing 5. 14.02.2020 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-42 (signed by Suresh Kumar Jain) Hearing fixed for 03.03.2020. No final order passed post the hearing 6. 08.08.2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Request to furnish ground-wise wise written submission before 23.08.2023 No final order passed post the submissions 7. 27.09.2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Request to furnish ground-wise wise written submission before 12.10.2023 No final order passed post the submissions

Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.05.2025 16:36:26 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2836/2025

Page 4 of 4

6.

It is apparent from above that the petitioner’s grievance is merited and there has been inordinate delay in addressing the petitioner’s appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that the delay has been on account of the petitioner’s appeal being transferred to various authorities. She states that currently the same stands transferred to Commissioner of Income Tax-44 [CIT(A)-44] and the reference has been made by the said authority to secure the documents and other material from the predecessor authorities (IAS). She submits that the petitioner would be heard and appeal would be decided shortly. 8. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to pass any order except to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 9. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 08, 2025 NS

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:19.05.2025 16:36:26 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →