In an important order, the Delhi High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Department for an inordinate delay of over 12 years in disposing of Casio India’s income tax appeal, even as the department proceeded to recovered an amount of ₹3.56 crore during the pendency of the appeal by adjusting the refund amount of the subsequent years.
Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia directed the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to finally adjudicate the matter within 12 weeks.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
Also read: ITR Filing: How to File Income Tax Returns (ITR) Step by Step for Beginners
The petitioner, Casio India Company Private Limited, had filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, which was picked up for scrutiny and culminated in a final assessment order dated 15.05.2013 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Aggrieved by the said order, Casio filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 31.05.2013. However, despite multiple hearings over the years and submissions before various appellate authorities, including the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the appeal remains undecided to date.
The company submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the Income Tax Department recovered the entire disputed tax demand by adjusting the income tax refunds due to the company for subsequent assessment years.
According to the records, approximately ₹3.56 crore was recovered, including ₹2.37 crore adjusted against AY 2021-22, ₹84.95 lakh against AY 2010-11, and ₹34.36 lakh voluntarily deposited earlier in 2019.
The Revenue contended that the delay occurred due to the repeated transfers of the appeal among various authorities. It was stated that the appeal is currently pending before CIT(A)-44, who is in the process of collecting relevant records from predecessor officers.
Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here
The court found merit in Casio’s Grievance. The Division Bench observed that there had been “inordinate delay” in addressing the appeal. The Court, while refraining from issuing a writ of certiorari, directed the concerned appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within 12 weeks from the date of the order, after giving Casio an opportunity of being heard. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
