In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, while observing a delay in the disposal of Income Tax Appeals, directed the central government to increase the strength of the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Public Interest Litigation was filed by the All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the issue of appeals being decided by Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) after long delays. The petitioner prayed to increase the number of Commissioners (Appeals) for deciding long-pending cases.
The petitioner submitted that they are one of the oldest and the largest Associations of Tax Practitioners in the country. The delay in the disposal of appeals by the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) is adversely affecting a large number of assessees, and it is difficult for all of them to approach this Court. Thus, the Writ Petition was filed.
The present PIL has been pending since the year 2013, and various orders and directions have been passed by this Court from time to time.
During the proceedings, Prashant Meharchandani, Senior Standing Counsel for CBDT, filed additional evidence, and in the affidavit, the CBDT showed the road map as to how the department seeks to dispose of pending appeals.
After considering the affidavit filed by the CBDT, the court observed that prayers as sought by the petitioner have been suitably addressed by the CBDT. Further, a review and analysis of the previously mentioned road map, which includes the Central Action Plan for the Financial Year 2022–2023, also suggest that the CBDT has developed a timely and workable strategy to address the numerous appeals that are currently pending before different Commissioners (Appeals).
Moreover, the counsel submitted that more than 570 Commissioners (Appeals) would be needed to deal with the pending appeals as in the year 2014. It appeared that as against the sanctioned strength of 349 Commissioner (Appeals), only 229 Commissioners form the working strength as of July 2023.
The CBDT had asked the relevant authorities to enhance the working force through direct hiring or promotions, as appropriate. The court considered that as far as increasing the sanctioned strength or filling up vacant posts of the Commissioner (Appeals) is concerned, the CBDT may not have any role to play. The court further noted that the Union of India may take necessary action and make decisions in this regard, given that filling all of the currently open positions would significantly help with the resolution of the outstanding appeals.
Prem Lata Bansal, Counsel for the petitioner, submitted the following suggestions before the court:
a. Working/Sanctioned Strength of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be increased substantially.
b. Since the assessees have to mandatorily deposit 20% of the demand as pre-deposit for the hearing of the appeal, further demands should not be raised until the appeal is decided.
c. Since the assessees are major stakeholders, their interests should be taken care of.
After analyzing the facts and arguments of both parties, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the road map drawn up by the CBDT in the additional affidavit adequately addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Bansal, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and as such, they do not feel it necessary to pass any further directions.
Therefore, the court directed to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts lying vacant for the disposal of the pending appeals. Also, the bench held that the Union of India may consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially, at least to the extent of 570 such posts, to achieve the aims and objectives of the Central Action Plan formulated every year.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
