My appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been pending for years. Can I get the High Court to make him decide it?
Yes. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although section 250(6A) says the Commissioner (Appeals) may decide an appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed 'where it is possible', the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal. On an appeal filed in January 2020 and still undecided five years later, the court issued a mandamus to decide it within three months of receipt of the order. It went on to lay down a general standard for the first appellate authorities and directed that its order be circulated to the CBDT and the field.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Arun Palli and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ. (order authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.)) on 2025-04-05, reported as CWP No. 9698 of 2025, assessment year 2018-19; [2025] 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab & Haryana); [2025] 475 ITR 371 (Punjab & Haryana). It bears on section 250(6A), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
The stock answer to a writ against first appellate delay is that section 250(6A) is directory, not mandatory, because of the words 'where it is possible'. This judgment does not pretend those words are absent; it reads them as a qualification on the deadline, not on the obligation, and holds that the legislative intent behind the provision is time-bound disposal. That gives a petitioner a High Court authority to put against the directory argument. Just as usefully, the court did not stop at the individual case: it set an outer standard of two years, required the reasons for any delay to be recorded in the zimni orders, and had the order sent to the Board. That makes it citable in any first-appeal delay matter, not only in Punjab and Haryana.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner was assessed for assessment year 2018-19 by an order dated 30 December 2019. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 on 9 January 2020. By the time the writ petition came to be heard in April 2025 the appeal had been pending for about five years without being taken up or decided. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal in a time-bound manner. The petition was filed against the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the appellate and assessing authorities. The Department did not dispute the pendency. The court treated the case as an illustration of a wider problem of first appellate delay rather than as an isolated grievance, and used it to address the working of section 250(6A) generally.
The court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 to decide the pending appeal within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. It rejected the reading of section 250(6A) under which the words 'where it is possible' reduce the one-year period to an aspiration with no content, holding instead that the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal of appeals. Going beyond the individual case, it laid down the standard the first appellate authorities are to follow: they should endeavour to dispose of appeals within the one-year period the section contemplates; where that is not possible the reasons for the delay must be explicitly recorded in the zimni orders; and in any event an appeal should not remain undecided beyond an outer limit of two years. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the concerned income-tax authorities for compliance.
The court began with the text of section 250(6A), which provides that in every appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide the appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed. It accepted that the qualifying words prevent the period from being read as a hard jurisdictional limit whose breach destroys the appeal. But it declined to draw from that the conclusion the Department wanted, namely that the provision imposes no obligation at all. The qualification, on the court's reading, goes to the difficulty of meeting the deadline in a particular case, not to whether there is a duty to try. The court supported that reading by reference to the consequence of delay: while an appeal is pending the disputed demand remains outstanding and the assessee's money remains blocked, so an indefinite pendency defeats the purpose of providing a first appeal at all. Since the statute fixes a period and the delay in the case before it ran to five years without any recorded explanation, the court held the case for a mandamus was made out. It then treated the absence of any recorded reason as the systemic failing worth correcting, which is why the general directions require the reasons for delay to appear in the zimni orders and why the order was sent to the Board rather than only to the officer concerned.
The intent of legislature unequivocally is in favour of time bound disposal of appeals.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although section 250(6A) says the Commissioner (Appeals) may decide an appeal within one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed 'where it is possible', the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal. On an appeal filed in January 2020 and still undecided five years later, the court issued a mandamus to decide it within three months of receipt of the order. It went on to lay down a general standard for the first appellate authorities and directed that its order be circulated to the CBDT and the field. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Arun Palli and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ. (order authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.)) and bears on section 250(6A), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as CWP No. 9698 of 2025, assessment year 2018-19; [2025] 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab & Haryana); [2025] 475 ITR 371 (Punjab & Haryana). The stock answer to a writ against first appellate delay is that section 250(6A) is directory, not mandatory, because of the words 'where it is possible'. This judgment does not pretend those words are absent; it reads them as a qualification on the deadline, not on the obligation, and holds that the legislative intent behind the provision is time-bound disposal. That gives a petitioner a High Court authority to put against the directory argument. Just as usefully, the court did not stop at the individual case: it set an outer standard of two years, required the reasons for any delay to be recorded in the zimni orders, and had the order sent to the Board. That makes it citable in any first-appeal delay matter, not only in Punjab and Haryana. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Before filing, put a written representation on record with the Commissioner (Appeals) asking for an early hearing, and annex it - the delay reads better when you have chased it.
The petitioner was assessed for assessment year 2018-19 by an order dated 30 December 2019. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 on 9 January 2020. By the time the writ petition came to be heard in April 2025 the appeal had been pending for about five years without being taken up or decided. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal in a time-bound manner. The petition was filed against the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the appellate and assessing authorities. The Department did not dispute the pendency. The court treated the case as an illustration of a wider problem of first appellate delay rather than as an isolated grievance, and used it to address the working of section 250(6A) generally. The matter was decided on 2025-04-05 by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Arun Palli and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ. (order authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 to decide the pending appeal within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. It rejected the reading of section 250(6A) under which the words 'where it is possible' reduce the one-year period to an aspiration with no content, holding instead that the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal of appeals. Going beyond the individual case, it laid down the standard the first appellate authorities are to follow: they should endeavour to dispose of appeals within the one-year period the section contemplates; where that is not possible the reasons for the delay must be explicitly recorded in the zimni orders; and in any event an appeal should not remain undecided beyond an outer limit of two years. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the concerned income-tax authorities for compliance.
The court began with the text of section 250(6A), which provides that in every appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide the appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which it is filed. It accepted that the qualifying words prevent the period from being read as a hard jurisdictional limit whose breach destroys the appeal. But it declined to draw from that the conclusion the Department wanted, namely that the provision imposes no obligation at all. The qualification, on the court's reading, goes to the difficulty of meeting the deadline in a particular case, not to whether there is a duty to try. The court supported that reading by reference to the consequence of delay: while an appeal is pending the disputed demand remains outstanding and the assessee's money remains blocked, so an indefinite pendency defeats the purpose of providing a first appeal at all. Since the statute fixes a period and the delay in the case before it ran to five years without any recorded explanation, the court held the case for a mandamus was made out. It then treated the absence of any recorded reason as the systemic failing worth correcting, which is why the general directions require the reasons for delay to appear in the zimni orders and why the order was sent to the Board rather than only to the officer concerned. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The intent of legislature unequivocally is in favour of time bound disposal of appeals." The decision followed or applied Perfetti Van Melle India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [CWP No. 6388 of 2025, dated 10-3-2025].
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-04-05 and is reported as CWP No. 9698 of 2025, assessment year 2018-19; [2025] 173 taxmann.com 358 (Punjab & Haryana); [2025] 475 ITR 371 (Punjab & Haryana). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 250(6A), section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 to decide the pending appeal within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. It rejected the reading of section 250(6A) under which the words 'where it is possible' reduce the one-year period to an aspiration with no content, holding instead that the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal of appeals. Going beyond the individual case, it laid down the standard the first appellate authorities are to follow: they should endeavour to dispose of appeals within the one-year period the section contemplates; where that is not possible the reasons for the delay must be explicitly recorded in the zimni orders; and in any event an appeal should not remain undecided beyond an outer limit of two years. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the concerned income-tax authorities for compliance. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 250(6A), section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Arun Palli and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ. (order authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Plead the concrete prejudice: demand outstanding, refunds withheld, money blocked while the appeal sleeps. Ask for a specific outer date in the prayer rather than a general direction to decide expeditiously. Do not ask the High Court to decide the merits; the relief available is a direction to the appellate authority to decide, not a substitute decision.
Validity check could not be completed. Indian Kanoon shows no decision citing this order as at 1 September 2026, and I found nothing doubting it. I did not trace whether it has been carried further, so I cannot put it higher than that. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Indian Kanoon prints the petitioner's name as 'Kulvinder Paul Singh'; the reported citations give 'Kulwinder'. I have kept the spelling used in the input, but the point is unresolved. The judgment was read in the reproduction on Indian Kanoon rather than on the High Court's own site. The two-year outer limit and the one-year endeavour appear in the general directions; I have set them out as the court expressed them, but I could not check them against a certified copy. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 to decide the pending appeal within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. It rejected the reading of section 250(6A) under which the words 'where it is possible' reduce the one-year period to an aspiration with no content, holding instead that the intent of the legislature is unequivocally in favour of time-bound disposal of appeals. Going beyond the individual case, it laid down the standard the first appellate authorities are to follow: they should endeavour to dispose of appeals within the one-year period the section contemplates; where that is not possible the reasons for the delay must be explicitly recorded in the zimni orders; and in any event an appeal should not remain undecided beyond an outer limit of two years. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the concerned income-tax authorities for compliance.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
Can the CIT(A) use the enhancement power to tax a source of income the Assessing Officer never examined?
Can an appellate authority under the Income-tax Act throw out an appeal because the appellant did not turn up?
Can you raise a ground before the CIT(A) that you never raised before the officer?