2014 (8) TMI 597 - HC - Income Tax

Court denies writ petition challenging assessment order; directs expedited appeal process under Income Tax Act.

Purshotamdas Jain Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

The court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging an order of assessment under Section 158BC read with Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ... Block assessment u/s 158BC r.w. Section 264 – Statutory appeal filed - Held that:- It is admitted by the assessee that as against the order, a statutory appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Appeals, Central II – there was no reason to entertain a writ petition as against the original order - the Commissioner of Appeals, Central II is directed to dispose of the appeal within a time frame, will meet the ends of justice and the assessee is to be granted an opportunity of hearing – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:Challenge to order of assessment under Section 158BC read with Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for block assessment years from 1988-89 to 1997-98.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order of assessment under Section 158BC read with Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for block assessment years from 1988-89 to 1997-98. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition. The court noted that a statutory appeal had already been filed before the Commissioner of Appeals, Central II against the impugned order. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition against the original order. The court observed that the appeal had been filed on a specific date, albeit with a minor error in the date mentioned. Therefore, the court directed the Commissioner of Appeals, Central II to dispose of the appeal within a specified timeframe to ensure justice is served.The Department's Senior Standing Counsel informed the court that appeals are typically heard in the order of seniority. However, the court recognized that cases like the present one, with a complex history of appeals before the Commissioner and the Tribunal since the original assessment in 2000, require a different approach. The court emphasized that the unique circumstances of the case necessitated a departure from the usual practice of hearing appeals solely based on seniority. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the Commissioner of Appeals, Central II to promptly address the petitioner's appeal, provide a fair hearing, and issue appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receiving the court's directive. The court concluded the judgment by stating that no costs were to be incurred by either party and closed the related miscellaneous petition.