Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata & Ors
High Court
03 Jan 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata & Ors
Date of order
03 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
2013-2014
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata & Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
3.1.2023
ks WPA 28739 of 2022
sl. 21
Dinesh Kumar Goyal
Vs
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. R.N. Dutt,Ms. Sutapa Roy Chowdhury,Mr. Abhijit Das,Ms. A. Ray
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai
… For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theimpugned outstanding demand dated 16[th] December,2022 relating to the assessment year 2013-2014 beingAnnexure P-15 at page 146 to the writ petition.Petitioner submits that against the relevantassessment order out of which the demand in questionis arising, petitioner has filed appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) concerned on17[th] May, 2016 along with an application for stay ofdemand in question and both are pending till datethough more than six years have been passed afterfiling the same and all on a sudden the AssessingOfficer concerned, for realizing of the demand inquestion has issued the impugned demand notice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of thecase as appears from record and submission of theparties this writ petition being WPA 28739 of 2022 is
disposed of by directing the Appellate Authorityconcerned to consider and dispose of the aforesaidapplication for stay of demand as appears at page 89of the writ petition in accordance with law and bypassing a reasoned and speaking order and aftergiving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or hisauthorised representative within a period of four weeksfrom the date of communication of this order.
This court does not appreciate such delay of morethan six years on the part of the CIT(Appeals)concerned in disposing of the appeal. It is expectedthat the CIT(Appeals) concerned shall show somepromptness and avoid such delay in future.CIT(Appeals) concerned shall dispose of the pendingappeal in question as expeditiously as possible but notbeyond three months from the date of communicationof this order.
Till the disposal of the stay application filed beforethe Appellate Authority concerned on 17[th] May, 2016,there shall be status quo with respect to the impugneddemand dated 16[th] December, 2022.
( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.