2024 (8) TMI 436 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in passing final orders by the CIT(A) - demands are now being considered by department against the petitioner in considering the refund claims of the petitioner for certain assessment years, which is causing a serious prejudice to the petitioner - HELD THAT - Proceedings of these appeals, which are pending before the CIT(A) need to be taken to the logical conclusion by a decision being rendered on such appeals as expeditiously as possible, this, more particularly, as earlier substantive order passed has also remained to be complied, in the spirit in which the same was made by the Court. As similar issues arise for consideration in both such appeals, we direct the CIT(A) to decide both the appeals in accordance with law within a period of four months from today and after an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for Writ of Mandamus to expedite appeal process for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 before CIT(A).

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent No.1 to expedite the appeals for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary grievance was the delay in passing final orders by the CIT(A) despite the petitioner being heard and submissions being filed. The petitioner had previously approached the Court in a similar matter, resulting in a direction to decide the appeal within six months. The petitioner argued that the delay was causing prejudice as substantial demands were raised against them under the assessment orders, which were being considered by the department in relation to refund claims, leading to serious prejudice.

The High Court, after perusing the record and considering the previous order, directed the CIT(A) to conclude the pending appeals expeditiously. Emphasizing the need for a prompt decision, the Court instructed the CIT(A) to decide both appeals within four months after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions of the petitioner in the ongoing proceedings were to be kept open and no further extensions would be granted for adjudicating the appeals. The learned counsel for the revenue was tasked with communicating the order to the CIT(A), and the case was disposed of accordingly, with the parties instructed to act on an authenticated copy of the order.