MAJUMDER GLOBAL IP vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/4253/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA008893202215 March 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order dated February 17, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was indeed non-speaking and failed to deal with the petitioner's contentions. The Court found the petitioner's allegation to be true upon perusal of the order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh, speaking order in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within two weeks of the communication of the order. The CIT (Appeals) was requested to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the applications under Section 220(6).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Majumder Global IP, is aggrieved by an assessment order and filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in October 2021. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. This application was rejected by an order dated February 17, 2022. The petitioner contends that the rejection order is non-speaking and fails to address the contentions raised in their application. The High Court perused the rejection order and found the petitioner's allegation to be true, noting the absence of discussion on the issues and contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated February 17, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a speaking order that adequately deals with the contentions raised by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated February 17, 2022, rejecting their application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is non-speaking and does not address the contentions raised by them. They prayed for a direction upon the CIT (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the nature of the rejection order or the prayer for expeditious disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

15.03.2022. p.b. Sl. No.26. W.P.A. 4253 of 2022 Majumder Global IP Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. Amitava Mitra, Ms. Antara Chaudhury. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Kundalia. ……..for Income Tax Authority. Heard both the parties. Facts involved in the instant case in brief is that the petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order in question filed the statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sometimes in the month of October 25, 2021 and petitioner makes an innocuous prayer for direction upon the CIT (Appeals) to dispose the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th February, 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same is non-speaking order and contentions raised by the petitioner has not at all been dealt with in the impugned order of rejection and on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 17th February, 2022, I find

2 that such allegation of the petitioner is true since it does not contain any discussion on the issues and contentions raised by the petitioner in his aforesaid application under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 17th February, 2022 with a direction upon the Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh and speaking order in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representatives within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Further, CIT (Appeals) is requested to dispose of the pending appeal in question expeditiously and preferably within three months. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merit of the aforesaid applications of the petitioner under Section 220 (6) of the Act and the Assessing Officer concerned while disposing the same shall act strictly in accordance with law. With this observation and direction, this writ petition being WPA No.4253 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →