+ W.p.(C) 2836/2025 Casio India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4-2 & Anr

$~21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 2836/2025 CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Arun Bhadauria and Mr. Purv Medhira, Advocates CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Arun Bhadauria and Mr. Purv Medhira, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4-2 & ANR. .....Respondents .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,praying as under: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 15.05.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 as being bad in law and to issue consequent refunds along with statutory interest. (ii) Alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to dispose the pending appeal preferred under Section 246/246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within a period of 2 months.” 2. The petitioner had filed its return of income for Assessment Year Signature Not Verified 2009-2010. The same was picked up for scrutiny. The assessment proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 15.05.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 (C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [theAct]. 3.The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 31.05.2013. 4. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the said appeal has not been decided as yet. To compound the petitioner’s grievance, the entire demand has been recovered by adjusting the refunds due to the petitioner for subsequent assessment years. The tabular statement of recovery of demand set out in the present petition is reproduced below: 5. The petitioner further states that the petitioner’s appeal has been heard by various authorities at different points of time but the final order has not been passed as yet. It is apposite to reproduce the tabular statement set out by the petitioner indicating the dates of hearing and the authorities that had heard the petitioner. The same is reproduced below: Signature Not Verified 6.It is apparent from above that the petitioner’s grievance is merited and there has been inordinate delay in addressing the petitioner’s appeal. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that the delay has been on account of the petitioner’s appeal being transferred to various authorities. She states that currently the same stands transferred to Commissioner of Income Tax-44 [CIT(A)-44] and the reference has been made by the said authority to secure the documents and other material from the predecessor authorities (IAS). She submits that the petitioner would be heard and appeal would be decided shortly. 8.In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to pass any order except to direct the concerned appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of twelve weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 9.The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 08, 2025 NS TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any