Court deems CBDT's Appeal disposal targets as directory, not mandatory. Incentives for quality orders questioned. Adjourned for further info.

The court opined that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) may set targets for the disposal of Appeals by the Appellate Commissioner, considering them as directory rather than mandatory. However, concerns were raised regarding the portion of the action plan providing incentives for quality orders, with the court suggesting a reconsideration of this aspect. The case was adjourned for the Respondent's counsel to provide further information on the purpose and outcome of CBDT's deliberations on this matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to directions issued by CBDT for disposal of Appeals within specified time limits.
2. Challenge to the portion of the action plan providing incentives for quality orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding the disposal of Appeals within specified time limits. They argued that these time limits are artificially applied, contrary to statutory provisions, and may lead to hurried orders by the Appellate Commissioner. The court opined that the targets set by the CBDT for disposal of Appeals may be directory and not mandatory. It also considered it permissible for the CBDT to prioritize the disposal of Appeals and set goals for the Appellate Commissioner to achieve within a certain timeframe.

2. The second part of the challenge focused on a specific portion of the action plan related to incentives for quality orders. The plan mentioned additional credit for quality appellate orders passed by CITs, with specific criteria for what constitutes a quality case. The court suggested that the CBDT should reconsider this portion of the action plan. It expressed concerns about the utility of the norms set for the Commissioner, especially in evaluating performance. The court requested the Respondent's counsel to provide information on the purpose of these norms and the outcome of CBDT's deliberations on reconsideration at the next hearing date.

Overall, the court's preliminary opinion leaned towards the permissibility of setting targets for disposal of Appeals by the Appellate Commissioner but raised questions about the effectiveness and purpose of the norms related to incentives for quality orders. The case was adjourned for further information and deliberation by the CBDT.

---