KAYS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AND 3 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/220/2023HC AllahabadUPHC01044043202327 February 20232 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that once an assessee avails the remedy of appeal, it becomes the duty of the Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority to provide an effective forum for such a remedy to be availed. Since the appeal was already pending before the ITAT, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the learned President of the Tribunal. If approached by the petitioner with a copy of this order, the President may make appropriate arrangements to ensure the expeditious hearing of the appeal and/or the stay application. The Court did not decide the merits of the underlying tax dispute or the validity of the Principal Commissioner's order. The petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kays Jewels Private Limited, is challenging an order dated March 31, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed an appeal (ITA 60/LKW/2022) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow, with the next hearing scheduled for March 6, 2023. However, the petitioner contends that due to a lack of bench availability, there is no realistic prospect of the appeal being heard and decided on the scheduled date, thereby preventing them from pressing their stay application. Parallel proceedings have commenced based on the impugned order. The Revenue did not dispute these facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to effective relief from the High Court given the pendency of an appeal before the ITAT and the alleged unavailability of the Tribunal for expeditious hearing and disposal of the stay application? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that due to the absence of bench availability at the ITAT, they are unable to have their appeal heard and their stay application considered, which effectively disables them from pursuing their statutory remedy. They are seeking intervention from the High Court to ensure their appeal is heard expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the pendency of the appeal and the procedural difficulties. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue on the merits of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 220 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kays Jewels Private Limited Respondent :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan learned counsel for the Revenue. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly confined the petition to the alternative prayer (iii) made in the writ petition. In the context of the above, it is undisputed, against the order dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur, petitioner has preferred ITA60/LKW/2022 (Kays Jewels Private Limited Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. Next date fixed in that appeal is 06.3.2023. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, in absence of any bench availability, there is no real hope of the appeal being heard and decided on the next date fixed. Thus, the petitioner is disabled from pressing his stay application. At the same time, parallel proceedings have commenced in compliance of the order dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The above facts stated could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

Once the assessee availed the remedy of appeal, it almost became a duty of the Tribunal/quasi judicial authority to provide for effective forum as may allow such remedy to be availed. Since the appeal is already pending, we deem it appropriate to observe that the learned President of the Tribunal, if approached by the petitioner alongwith a copy of this order, may make appropriate arrangement so as to ensure expeditious hearing of the appeal and/or stay application. With the above observations, present petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Faraz (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, ACJ) Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →