2025 (5) TMI 1423 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment proceedings culminated in the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r/w Section 144 (C) (13) - petitioner s grievance that the said appeal has not been decided as yet - To compound the petitioner s grievance the entire demand has been recovered by adjusting the refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years Revenue states on instructions that the delay has been on account of the petitioner s appeal being transferred to various authorities. She states that currently the same stands transferred to CIT-44 and the reference has been made by the said authority to secure the documents and other material from the predecessor authorities (IAS). HELD THAT - As we do not consider it apposite to pass any order except to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner s appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is legally valid or liable to be set aside by writ of certiorari.

(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to refunds along with statutory interest consequent upon setting aside the said assessment order.

(c) Whether the delay in disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sections 246/246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the assessment order is justified or amounts to a violation of the petitioner's right to a fair and timely adjudication.

(d) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within a stipulated timeframe.

(e) The legality and propriety of the Revenue's recovery of the demand by adjusting refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years despite the pendency of the appeal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Validity of the Final Assessment Order and Entitlement to Refunds

The petitioner challenged the final assessment order dated 15.05.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10. The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the said order as being bad in law and consequential refunds with statutory interest.

The legal framework governing this issue is the Income-tax Act, particularly the provisions relating to assessment and reassessment proceedings (Section 143(3)), the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 144C, and appellate remedies under Sections 246/246A. The petitioner's challenge is predicated on the contention that the assessment order is legally flawed and that the petitioner's statutory rights have been infringed.

However, the Court did not delve into the substantive merits of the assessment order itself, as the primary grievance related to procedural delay and non-adjudication of the appeal. No detailed examination of the assessment order's legality or the correctness of the tax demand was undertaken at this stage. The petitioner's entitlement to refunds and interest was linked to the setting aside of the assessment order, which was contingent on the appeal being decided.

The Court's reasoning focused on the procedural aspect, noting the pendency of the appeal and the absence of a final adjudication on the merits. The petitioner's claim for refunds and interest was therefore held to be premature until the appeal was decided.

Issue (c) & (d): Delay in Disposal of Appeal and Direction for Expeditious Disposal

The petitioner's principal grievance was the inordinate delay in disposal of the appeal preferred against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Sections 246/246A. The appeal was filed on 31.05.2013, and despite multiple hearings before various authorities over a period exceeding a decade, no final order had been passed.

The relevant legal framework includes the principles of natural justice, the right to a fair and timely hearing, and the statutory mandate requiring appeals to be decided expeditiously. Precedents emphasize that undue delay in adjudication of tax appeals causes prejudice to the assessee and undermines the rule of law.

The Court examined the tabular chronology of hearings and authorities involved, noting that the appeal was transferred multiple times among different Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeal) and the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Revenue's explanation attributed the delay to administrative transfers and the process of securing documents from predecessor authorities.

The Court found this explanation insufficient to justify the prolonged delay, observing that the petitioner's grievance was merited. The Court emphasized the petitioner's right to have the appeal decided within a reasonable timeframe and the necessity of affording an opportunity of being heard before final adjudication.

Balancing the competing arguments, the Court declined to interfere with the assessment order itself but issued a direction mandating the concerned appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, specifically within twelve weeks from the date of the order. This direction was intended to ensure procedural fairness and prevent further prejudice to the petitioner.

Issue (e): Legality of Recovery by Adjustment of Refunds

The petitioner contended that the Revenue had recovered the entire demand by adjusting refunds due for subsequent assessment years, despite the pendency of the appeal. The tabular statement indicated multiple adjustments and partial voluntary payments totaling substantial amounts.

The Court did not expressly rule on the legality of such recovery in the judgment. However, the issue was implicitly linked to the delay in disposal of the appeal and the petitioner's right to challenge the demand. The Court's order for expeditious disposal of the appeal implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding recovery during pendency of appellate proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's significant legal pronouncements and conclusions include:

"It is apparent from above that the petitioner's grievance is merited and there has been inordinate delay in addressing the petitioner's appeal."

"In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to pass any order except to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard."

The Court thus established the core principle that delay in adjudication of tax appeals, especially spanning several years and involving multiple transfers, is unacceptable and warrants judicial intervention to protect the assessee's rights.

The final determination was that the petition is allowed solely to the extent of directing the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within twelve weeks, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessment order or the validity of the recovery measures.

← Previous Next →