“Delay Defeats the Objective of Section 250(6A)”: Punjab & Haryana HC Flags ‘Revenue Blocked’ Appeals, Orders Disposal in 3 Months, Seeks Reasons for Delays
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma disposed of a writ petition seeking a time-bound direction to decide a pending income tax appeal. The Court directed the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the petitioner’s appeal, pending since January 2020, within three months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order. The Bench observed 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,” and instructed that such appeals be preferably resolved within the statutory time frame.
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals), designated as Respondent No. 2, for expeditious disposal of an appeal filed on 09.01.2020 against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2018–2019.
According to the petitioner, despite a lapse of more than five years, there had been no progress or adjudication on the appeal, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court. It was submitted that the prolonged pendency of the appeal caused undue hardship and delayed resolution of tax liabilities.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to submit that the appellate authority is statutorily expected to dispose of an appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed. It was argued that while the statutory language includes the phrase “where it is possible,” the intent of the legislature is unambiguously in favour of timely disposal of appeals.
Reference was made to a previous order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the High Court in CWP No. 6388 of 2025 (Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others). In that case, an appeal had remained undecided since 2015, and the High Court had issued directions for its disposal within six months. The petitioner contended that a similar approach was warranted in the present case.
The counsel representing the Income Tax Department, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, did not oppose the request for a time-bound direction and submitted that the appeal would be adjudicated in accordance with law.
The Court, after hearing both parties and perusing the record, noted that no reasons had been provided for the delay in deciding the appeal, and that the appeal had remained pending since its filing in January 2020.
The Bench examined Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides:
“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...”
Referring to the statutory provision, the Court recorded: “A bare perusal of the 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.”
The Court stated: “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.”
The Bench acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on the judgment in CWP No. 6388 of 2025 and noted: “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.”
While addressing the systemic issue, the Division Bench stated: “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.”
The Court expressed its concern regarding delays and the impact on revenue, recording: “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.”
It further observed: “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.”
The Court noted the necessity for accountability in cases of delay and stated: “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.”
It concluded: “Then also efforts should be made to decide the appeals maximum within a period of two years.”
The Court issued the following directive:
“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.”
“All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
The Court further directed:
“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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sachit Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department
Case Title: Kulwinder Paul Singh v. The Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC: 047093-DB
Case Number: CWP No. 9698 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arun Palli and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma
[Read/Download order]
