Disposed¶33

Sanjit Singh Randhawa v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2025CWP/9724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income-tax appeal pendency before CIT(A)-3; writ of mandamus for time bound disposal; Section 250(6A) Income Tax Act, 1961; 'where it is possible' construed as favouring time bound disposal; appeal filed 20.01.2020 against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for AY 2018-2019; direction to decide within three months; reliance on earlier P&H order in Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (CWP No. 6388 of 2025, 10.03.2025); pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the petitioner's appeal within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶33

Sanjit Singh Randhawa Vs the Central Board of Direct… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the petitioner's appeal filed on 20.01.2020 in a time bound manner. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The petitioner's appeal against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019, filed on 20.01.2020, had remained undecided for almost five years with no progress in the proceedings.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Although the expression 'where it is possible' is used in Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time bound disposal of appeals.

¶27

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the petitioner's appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's income-tax appeal, filed on 20.01.2020 against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for assessment year 2018-2019 and pending for nearly five years, within three months from receipt of the order. Construing Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Court held that although the provision uses the expression 'where it is possible', the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time bound disposal of appeals. The Court noted its earlier order dated 10.03.2025 in CWP No. 6388 of 2025, Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, where directions were issued for disposal of an appeal pending nearly a decade. Pending applications were also disposed of.

¶1

CWP No. 9724 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117

¶4

Date of decision: April 05, 2025

¶5

CWP No. 9724 of 2025

¶6

SANJIT SINGH RANDHAWA

¶7

.....PETITIONER

¶8

V/S

¶9

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sachit Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, for the respondents-Income Tax Department.

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks issuance of a writ in

¶16

the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 in a time bound manner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 on 20.01.2020 before respondent No. 2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) and till date, the same has not been decided. He, therefore, prays for directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

¶18

PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP No. 9724 of 2025

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the present case.

¶23

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner filed an appeal against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for the assessment year 2018-2019 on 20.01.2020 i.e. almost 5 years back and till date, there is no progress in the proceedings.

¶24

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down the procedure to be followed in appeal, which is reproduced as under:-

¶25

“250 (6A) In every appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him under sub-section (1) or transferred to him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 246 or filed before him under sub-section (1) of section 246A, as the case may be.”

¶26

A bare perusal of above-referred to provision shows the intention of the legislature since it has been specifically mentioned that in every appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him.

¶27

It is evident that although the expression “where it is possible” has been used, the intent of legislature unequivocally is in favour of time bound disposal of appeals.

¶28

PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP No. 9724 of 2025

¶30

¶31

The petitioner has drawn attention to an earlier order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6388 of 2025 titled as Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others, wherein, it was observed by this Court that the appeal was filed in the year 2015 i.e. almost about 10 years back and was not decided, which forced the petitioner therein to file CWP No. 6388 of 2025, where this Court was constrained to issue directions for disposal of the appeal that had been pending for nearly a decade within a period of six months.

¶32

In the present writ petition, again the petitioner filed the appeal in the year 2020 i.e. 5 years back and till date, there is no progress.

¶33

Therefore, in view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

April 05, 2025 pj

¶37

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

¶38

PRERNA JOSHI 2025.04.08 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sanjit Singh Randhawa v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Singh Randhawa v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin Mohan Seth Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Rakesh Goyal Vs Union of India and Others

Rajni Garg Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad and Others

Kulvinder Paul Singh Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Family Nest Real Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Rakesh Goyal Vs Union of India and Others