YOGINDER KUMAR SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2047/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012842202611 February 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the petitioner's alternate prayer to be reasonable. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was ordered to finally decide the petitioner's statutory appeal, filed against the assessment order dated 27.02.2025, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The decision was to be made in accordance with the law. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yoginder Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 27.02.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against this assessment order. Along with the appeal, an application for stay was filed, which was not accepted in its entirety. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority (respondent No.3) to expeditiously dispose of the pending appeal, citing financial hardship due to the delay. The respondents had no objection to this prayer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously decide the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 27.02.2025, concerning assessment year 2015-16, under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he would be satisfied if the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to expeditiously decide his statutory appeal. He stated that the delay in the decision of the appeal was causing him untold financial hardship, as his application for stay, filed with the appeal, had not been accepted in toto. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents had no objection to the petitioner's alternate prayer for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

136

CWP-2047-2026

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026

YOGINDER KUMAR SHARMA

......PETITIONER

Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH AND ORS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.

***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has express instructions from the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to expeditiously dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to challenge therein assessment order dated 27.02.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2015- 16 (Annexure P-11) because delay in the decision of such appeal is causing untold financial hardship to the petitioner as his application for stay, filed along with the aforesaid appeal, has not been accepted in toto. 2.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the acceptance of the afore alternate prayer made on the petitioner’s behalf. 3.

In the light of the above, we find the petitioner’s alternate prayer to be reasonable and accordingly, dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to finally decide the petitioner’s aforesaid appeal filed by PRINCE SAINI 2026.02.13 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2047-2026

-2-

him against the assessment order dated 27.02.2025 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

11.02.2026

[LAPITA BANERJI] Prince

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

Yes/No

PRINCE SAINI 2026.02.13 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →