RYATAR SAHARKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT RANNA NAGAR, TIMMAPUR TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT RPTD.BY ITS M.D. SANJAY S.PUJARI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2ND FLOOR, FEROZ KHIMJIBHAI COM COMPLEX-1, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM \\u2013590001

WP/105846/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, a cooperative sugar factory, which filed writ petitions against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking an early hearing for a batch of appeals related to various assessment years from 2005-06 to 2012-13. The appeals were initially delayed based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) guidelines, which stipulated that appeals filed after March 31, 2014, could not be heard before March 31, 2015. The petitioner argued that their cases should be heard earlier due to the interrelated issues with another appeal scheduled for an earlier date. The court examined the CBDT guidelines and the Central Action Plan 2014-15, particularly focusing on the provision that allows for the disposal of related appeals irrespective of their filing dates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804559 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PUKALE
• Keywords: Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); Income Tax Appeals; Mandamus; Writ petition; Central Action Plan
• Section: 246A; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION Nos.105846/2014 & 106796-804/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN: RYATAR SAHARKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT RANNA NAGAR, TIMMAPUR TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT RPTD.BY ITS M.D. SANJAY S.PUJARI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOJ D PUKALE, ADV.) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2ND FLOOR, FEROZ KHIMJIBHAI COM COMPLEX-1, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM –590001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.) 2 THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO HEAR THE BATCH APPEALS OF THE PETITIONER FILED UNDER SEC 246A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IN ITA Nos.CIT(A)-447 AND 107 TO 115/BGM/2014-15 AT AN EARLY DATE AND DISPOSE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER These writ petitions have been filed asking for a mandamus against the respondent, to hear and dispose of at an early date, the batch of appeals filed by the petitioner, in ITA Nos. CIT(A)-447 and 107 to 115/BGM/2014-15, under S.246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, the respondent has sent a communication dated 08.07.2014 to the petitioner in the matter of appellate proceedings for petitioner’s assessment years commencing from 2005-06 to 2012-13 i.e., in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 13.06.2014 requesting to take up the said appeals for hearing along with ITA No.CIT(A)-447/BGM/13-14 for the 3 assessment year 2011-12, which appeal is now posted for hearing on 22.07.2014. By the said communication, the petitioner was informed that the other cases having been filed after 31.03.2014, the same cannot be taken up for hearing before 31.03.2015 as per the CBDT guidelines meant for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), commencing from 08.08.2013 onwards the details of which are as follows: RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARTHANE NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT GROUP Sl. No . Name of Assessee ITA No. A.Y. Date of filing/ Delay in filing of appeal Sec. under which the AO passed the order appealed against and the date of order. 1 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Bagalkot 447/BGM/13-14 2011-12 25/03/2014 20 days 143(3)/ 31.01.2013 2 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 75/BGM/13-14 2010-11 08/08/2013 -- 271(1)(C) 08.07.2013 3 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 110/BGM/14-15 2012-13 16/05/2014 1 year 3 months 201(1)/(1A)/ 19.03.2013 4 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 109/BGM/14-15 2011-12 16/05/2014 1 year 3 months 201(1)/(1A)/ 19.03.2013 5 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 108/BGM/14-15 2010-11 16/05/2014 1 year 3 months 201(1)/(1A)/ 19.03.2013 6 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 107/BGM/14-15 2009-10 16/05/2014 1 year 3 months 201(1)/(1A)/ 19.03.2013 7 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 115/BGM/14-15 2010-11 16/05/2014 1 year 3 months 143(3)/ 31.01.2013 8 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 114/BGM/14-15 2009-10 16/05/2014 2 year 4 months 143(3)/ 28.10.2011 4 9 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 113/BGM/14-15 2008-09 16/05/2014 3 year 3 months 143(3)/ 20.12.2010 10 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 112/BGM/14-15 2006-07 16/05/2014 6 year 143(3)/ 21.12.2008 11 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 111/BGM/14-15 2005-06 16/05/2014 6 year 29 days 143(3)/ 26.12.2007 12 R.S.S.K. Niyamit Bagalkot. 2011-12 Stay application 3. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the writ record. 4. Respondent has fixed ITA No.CIT(A)- 447/BGM/13-14 for hearing on 22.07.2014. Central Action Plan 2014-15 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, at Chapter VI relating to CIT (Appeals), containing, para 3.3. being relevant, is extracted below: “In case CIT (A) is of the views that appeals of the same assessee for different years or different assesses for the same year or different years involving substantially similar issues or inter related issues are pending, the CIT (A) may dispose-off such appeals irrespective of Baskets, if one or more among such appeals falls within the priority of disposal.” 5. The communication of the respondent dated 08.07.2014, noticed supra, has not taken into 5 consideration the Central Action Plan, 2014-15, more particularly, para 3.3. extracted supra. There is non application of mind on the part of the respondent in the matter of sending communication dated 08.07.2014 i.e., in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 13.06.2014. In the circumstances, respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner made in letter dated 13.06.2014 by keeping in view the provision extracted supra and inform the petitioner, the outcome, without any delay. Time for compliance i.e., consideration of the claim with reference to petitioner’s letter dated 13.06.2014 is two weeks from the date a copy of this order becomes available. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. SD/- JUDGE sac* "