Delay in Implementing Appellate Remand barred exercise of power; excessive administrative delay required refund with interest.

Where a tribunal remitted transfer-pricing issues and statutory amendment later prescribed time limits for giving effect to appellate orders, an inordinate delay of over eight years in passing any order giving effect to the remand was held to bar the revenue from now exercising that power; the court applied the principle that excessive administrative delay cannot be treated as a reasonable period and directed refund with interest accordingly, upholding the Single Judge's remedy based on prior precedents on limitation for giving effect to appellate orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether, having regard to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 remitting issues to the Transfer Pricing Officer and the amendment to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2016, an order giving effect to the Tribunal's remand can now be validly passed after an inordinate delay of over eight years.

Analysis: The assessment year involved is 2003-04 and the Tribunal's remand order is dated 03.04.2017. Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended with effect from 01.06.2016 prescribing specific time limits for giving effect to appellate orders in certain contingencies. Prior to the amendment, no specific limitation period was prescribed for passing an order giving effect to a remand. The Court considered the factual position that no order giving effect to the Tribunal's remand has been passed to date and that more than eight years have elapsed since the Tribunal's order. The Court applied the principle that, even if no express time-limit existed prior to amendment, an inordinate delay of such magnitude cannot be treated as a reasonable period for administrative action and would bar the exercise of power to give effect to the remand at this stage. The Single Judge's decision directing refund with interest was founded on this reasoning and on earlier Division Bench decisions dealing with similar questions of limitation under Section 153.

Conclusion: The writ appeal is dismissed and the Single Judge's direction to the Revenue to consider and grant the refund with applicable interest is upheld; the delay in passing any order giving effect to the Tribunal's remand bars the Revenue from now passing such an order in the present proceedings.

---