Kulwinder Paul Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Kulwinder Paul Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Others, considered a writ petition seeking time-bound disposal of an income-tax appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals). The petitioner had challenged an assessment order dated 30 December 2019 relating to Assessment Year 2018-19 by filing an appeal on 9 January 2020. Despite approximately five years having elapsed, there had been no progress in the appellate proceedings. The petitioner consequently approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within a specified period. Counsel representing the Income Tax Department did not oppose the request.
The High Court examined Section 250(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals), wherever possible, may hear and decide an appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed or transferred. The Court emphasised that although the provision contains the qualification “where it is possible”, its legislative objective is the timely disposal of income-tax appeals. The Court also referred to its earlier order dated 10 March 2025 in Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Others, CWP No. 6388 of 2025, concerning an appeal pending for nearly ten years. In that matter, the High Court had directed disposal within six months.
Considering the prolonged pendency in the petitioner’s case, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide the appeal within three months from receipt of the order. The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
The Court additionally expressed concern over the considerable number of writ petitions being filed for directions to expedite income-tax appeals. It observed that such delays defeat the objective of Section 250(6A) and result in substantial revenue remaining blocked during appellate proceedings. Appellate authorities were therefore expected to endeavour to dispose of appeals preferably within one year. Where disposal within that period is not achieved, the reasons for delay must be recorded explicitly in the zimni orders, indicating whether the delay is attributable to the assessee or the Revenue. The Court further stated that efforts should be made to decide appeals within a maximum period of two years.
The Registry was directed to forward the order to the Union of India, CBDT and specified income-tax authorities for necessary compliance.
Cases Discussed
- Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Others, CWP No. 6388 of 2025, decided on 10 March 2025 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) — The High Court referred to its earlier order concerning an income-tax appeal pending for nearly ten years. In that case, the Court directed disposal of the appeal within six months. The precedent was cited to highlight recurring delays in income-tax appellate proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 09.01.2020 in a time bound manner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal against assessment order dated 30.12.2019 on 09.01.2020 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.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the present case.
5. 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 09.01.2020 i.e. almost 5 years back and till date, there is no progress in the proceedings.
6. Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down the procedure to be followed in appeal, which is reproduced as under:-
“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.”
7. 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. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
12. Before parting with this order, we deem it appropriate to note, with concern, that considerable number of writ petitions are being filed before this Court seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This indicates an inordinate delay in adjudication at the appellate level, which defeats the objective of Section 250 (6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
13. Considering that substantial amount of revenue is involved in these appeals, and that such amount remain blocked during the pendency of the proceedings, it is imperative that the Appellate Authorities should endeavour to dispose of the appeals, preferably within one year as per the provisions of the Act.
14. In cases, where disposal within this period is not done, the reasons for such delay must be explicitly recorded in the zimni orders, so as to reflect whether the delay is attributable to the assessee or the department/revenue. Then also efforts should be made to decide the appeals maximum within a period of two years.
15. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Union of India, The Central Board of Direct Taxes, The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), for necessary compliance.
