Mapin Publishing Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Case Summary: In Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Ors., the Gujarat High Court examined the prolonged pendency of an income-tax appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee had filed its appeal on 19 January 2019, but it remained undecided for approximately seven years. The Court considered Section 250(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which contemplates disposal of appeals within one year from the end of the financial year in which they are filed, wherever possible. Relying on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Paul Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Court held that the legislative intent favours time-bound disposal of appeals and that prolonged pendency frustrates this objective. It further observed that appeals pending beyond one year may fall within the category of genuine hardship under the CBDT guidelines dated 7 March 2024. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within three months.
Citation: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Ors., R/Special Civil Application No. 8913 of 2026, Gujarat High Court, order dated 22 October 2026.
Core issue: Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can allow an income-tax appeal to remain pending for several years despite Section 250(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which contemplates disposal within one year wherever possible, and whether prolonged pendency constitutes genuine hardship warranting judicial directions for expeditious disposal.
Fact: The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 on 19 January 2019. Despite the passage of approximately seven years, the appeal remained undecided. The assessee approached the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction for disposal of the appeal, relying on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Paul Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, wherein an appeal pending for nearly five years had been directed to be decided within three months. The Revenue referred to the CBDT guidelines dated 7 March 2024, which prescribe priority and out-of-turn disposal of appeals falling within specified categories.
High Court finding: The Gujarat High Court observed that Section 250(6A) reflects the legislative intent that income-tax appeals should ordinarily be heard and decided within one year from the end of the financial year in which they are filed, wherever possible. Relying on Kulwinder Paul Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Court held that the expression “where it is possible” cannot be used to justify keeping appeals pending for several years, thereby frustrating the legislative objective. The Court further observed that appeals remaining pending beyond one year would fall within the fifth category of genuine hardship contemplated by the CBDT guidelines issued vide Letter F. No. 279/MISC./M-102/2021-ITJ dated 7 March 2024. Considering that the assessee had been awaiting the outcome of its appeal for approximately seven years, the Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Cases relied: Kulwinder Paul Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors., (2025) 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), holding that Section 250(6A) reflects the legislative intention of time-bound disposal of income-tax appeals and that prolonged pendency cannot be justified merely by relying on the expression “where it is possible”.
Outcome: The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Rule was made absolute to that extent. The merits of the underlying tax dispute were not adjudicated.
Cases Discussed
- Kulwinder Paul Singh Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes — (2025) 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), decided on 5 April 2025. The Gujarat High Court agreed that Section 250(6A), despite using the expression “where it is possible”, reflects legislative intent favouring time-bound disposal of appeals. The cited judgment directed disposal of an appeal pending for almost five years within three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Rule. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Dev D. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. Learned advocate Mr. B.S Soparkar for the petitioner has confined his prayers to prayer 7(b) whereby the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal within a period of four weeks.
2.1 It is submitted that the petitioner filed appeal on 19.01.2019, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – R2, and even after passage of 7 years, the same has remained undecided. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Kulwinder Paul Singh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, in (2025) 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab & Haryana),wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal within a period of 3 months, as the appeal in the said case had been pending for almost 5 years.
3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Dev Patel has referred to the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for giving priority and out of turn disposal of appeals, in case of those appeals which are governed by five categories as specified therein.
4. Thus, the petitioner who has filed the appeal before the respondent no. 2 has been awaiting for the result of appeal even after passage of 7 years. We may at this stage, refer to the provision of Section 250 (6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), which reads thus:
“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 the 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 subsection (1) of Section 246A, as the case may be.”
5. As per the aforesaid provision, the appellate authority has to hear and decide the appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial years, where it is possible. We agree with the observations made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Kulwinder Paul Singh (supra), wherein it is held as under:
“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.”
6. Thus, the intention of the legislature of incorporating the provision of Section 250 of the Act, cannot be frustrated by procrastinating the appeals for almost more than a period of 6 years. Although the appeals are supposed to be disposed of within a period of one year and the same have not been decided for more than period of 6 years. We may also refer to the Guidelines of the CBDT issued vide Letter F. No. 279/MISC./M- 102/2021-ITJ dated 07.03.2024, which specifies of taking up the appeals on priority basis under five categories. We find that the case of the present petitioner or any similarly situated appellant wherein the appeals have remained pending beyond the period of one year would fall under the 5th category i.e. “any other case of genuine hardship.”
7. Thus, the CIT (Appeals) is required to decide the appeals expeditiously after the expiry period of one year as mentioned under the provision of Section 250 of the Act and cannot take shelter into the expression “where it is possible” and procrastinate the appeal of the appellant years to come, thereby frustrating the intention of the legislature. In the present case, more than 6 years have lapsed, where the petitioner-assessee awaits the final outcome of the appeal.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.
