Case Law Details
Janhavi Promoters Private Limited Vs DCIT (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition challenging the inaction of the income tax appellate authority in complying with a Tribunal direction dated 21.01.2025. The Tribunal had restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a direction to pass a speaking order for Assessment Year 2015-16 after noting that no appellate order had been passed despite repeated opportunities given to the department to provide information.
The petitioner subsequently filed an application dated 30.04.2025 seeking early disposal of the appeal, but the appeal remained pending even after being transferred to another appellate authority. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s direction had remained uncomplied with for over 17 months. The respondents did not object to the request for early disposal.
The High Court held that the failure to comply with the Tribunal’s binding direction for over 17 months amounted to non-compliance of a judicial order. It observed that an assessee cannot be left remediless due to administrative inaction and that such delay violates the principles of natural justice and the right to speedy justice under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide the application for early disposal within six weeks by passing a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner and to communicate the decision within one week thereafter.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner in the instant case challenges inter alia, the inaction on the part of the respondent no. 4 in not acting in terms of the direction provided in the order dated 21.1.2025 as directed in the paragraph 3, which is reproduced below:
“3. Though the department has been given opportunity many a times to give a report as to whether the appellate order for the assessment year under consideration has been passed or not by the Ld. CIT (A) and if passed to supply the copy of the said order to the assessee. However, no information has been provided by the department. It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order relating to the appeal of the assessee for assessment year under consideration. In view of this, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in respect of the appeal of the assessee for AY2015-16. This appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.”
2. Despite making an application dated 30.4.2025 for early disposal of the appeal pending before the respondent no. 2, which has been subsequently transferred to respondent no. 6, however, remains to be pending for consideration and adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CITA has failed to comply with Tribunal’s direction dated 21.1.2025 for over 17 months.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not raise any objection with regard to the application for early disposal of the appeal dated 30.4.2025.
5. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records, this Court is prima facie satisfied with the submission made by the petitioner and an interference is warranted at this stage.
6. The Tribunals order dated 21.1.2025 has specifically directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order for assessment year 2015-16. The failure to do so for over 17 months, amounts to noncompliance of a binding judicial order.
7. An assessee cannot be left remediless due to administrative in action. The delay in disposal of appeal violates the principles of natural justice and right to speedy justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. Since the respondents have not disputed the facts and have conceded to the prayer for early disposal, there exists no impediment in directing time bound disposal.
9. In view of the above, I direct the respondent no. 4 to consider the application for early disposal of the appeal dated 30.4.2025 peremptorily within a period of six weeks and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate such decision within a week thereafter.
10. The writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of this case.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
Author Bio
