A writ petition filed challenging inaction or delay by the income-tax Appellate Authority becomes infructuous once the authority passes the appellate order during the petition’s pendency. The Calcutta High Court here upholds existing precedent, confirming that such writs must be dismissed as infructuous. This serves as binding authority within West Bengal for similar situations in income-tax matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPO/670/2025 of SRI BALAJI METALS AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) KOLKATA AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCO0033412025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Calcutta High Court) |
| Type of Law | Income Tax, Constitutional Writ |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of an income-tax appeal remains maintainable after the appellate order is passed during the writ pendency. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Once the appellate authority passes an order disposing of the statutory appeal during pendency of a writ petition seeking such disposal, the writ petition becomes infructuous and must be dismissed. The Court cannot adjudicate on issues that have ceased to subsist. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging delay/failure of the appellate authority to dispose of its appeal under Section 250, concerning an assessment order for AY 2016-17. During writ pendency, the NFAC passed the appellate order, rendering the petition infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Income Tax Appellate Authorities facing similar procedural factual matrices. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that writ petitions challenging delay by an appellate authority automatically become infructuous if the appellate order is passed while the writ is pending.
- Lawyers should promptly inform the court if the grievance is addressed by the authority during pendency to avoid unnecessary further proceedings.
- Useful authority for revenue and taxpayers: No substantive relief will be granted if the impugned inaction is remedied before final hearing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner challenged the inaction of the income-tax appellate authority, citing failure to dispose of the Section 250 appeal.
- The petitioner informed the court that, pending the writ, the appellate authority (NFAC) had disposed of the appeal.
- The court accepted the production of the appellate order, recorded that the grievance no longer survived, and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
- The judgment is based on basic principles: courts do not issue orders on matters which have ceased to exist and do not grant futile relief once the underlying cause is addressed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Filed the writ challenging the failure of the Appellate Authority to dispose of a Section 250 appeal.
- Notified the Court that the order under Section 250 was passed during writ pendency and placed a copy of the order before the Court.
Respondent (Revenue)
- No substantive rejoinder appears, as the grievance stood resolved upon the passing of the appellate order.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 for the assessment year 2016-17. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court via writ jurisdiction, challenging the failure of the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. During the pendency of this writ petition, the National Faceless Appeal Centre disposed of the appeal and issued the appellate order, which was then produced before the Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment references Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (disposal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals)), as the relevant statutory provision.
- No substantive legal interpretation or expansion of the statutory text was required, because the appellate order’s issuance rendered the grievance moot.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations are set out in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established legal principles regarding the dismissal of infructuous writ petitions.