Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra v. CPC
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 250; 220(6); refund adjustment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
2016 before the Assessing Officer requesting for stay of the demand raised vide order dated 20 December 2017. It is important to note that Page 1 of 6
dated 29 January 2018 was not decided for a period of almost for more than six years and on 17 April 2024 an order on the stay application came to be passed. In the said order, the Assessing Officer admitted that 20% of the total demand has already been paid by the assessee and, therefore, relying upon Instruction No.1914, the stay was granted for the balance amount of Rs.30,33,240/-. The stay was granted subject to the conditions that the Petitioner shall co-operate in the early disposal of the appeal and further the Assessing Officer reserved his right to review this order after expiry of six months. 8.
the revenue has recovered more than 20% of the demand for which the stay has been granted by the Assessing Officer. He submits that the Petitioner
Appellant / assessee submissions
Mr. Gurjar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that
We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Revenue / respondent submissions
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondents, defended
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
dated 29 January 2018 was not decided for a period of almost for more than six years and on 17 April 2024 an order on the stay application came to be passed. In the said order, the Assessing Officer admitted that 20% of the total demand has already been paid by the assessee and, therefore, relying upon Instruction No.1914, the stay was granted for the balance amount of Rs.30,33,240/-. The stay was granted subject to the conditions that the Petitioner shall co-operate in the early disposal of the appeal and further the Assessing Officer reserved his right to review this order after expiry of six months. 8.
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after addressing letter dated 14 November 2023, whereby the Petitioner has objected to the adjustment of refund for assessment year 2022-2023 against the demand of assessment year 2015-2016 on the ground that he has already paid 20% of the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 and, therefore, the refund adjustment was not in accordance with law. 9.
Rs.7,58,310/- on 25 January 2018 even before the stay application was filed on 29 January 2018. Inspite of such a payment, the revenue adjusted the refund of assessment year 2022-2023 on 6 October 2022 amounting Rs.6,05,030/-. Therefore, the department has recovered excess of Rs.6,05,030/- and therefore, the revenue should be directed to refund the said amount being contrary to their own stay order dated 17 April 2024. 10.
Respondents in not adjudicating the stay application for more than six years. The stay application was filed on 29 January 2018 for assessment year 2015-2016 and the stay order was passed on 17 April 2024. It is almost after a period of more than six years. If the revenue is keen on recovery of the 20% of the demand then it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to dispose of the stay application as early as possible so that the interest of the revenue is protected. By delaying the adjudication of the stay application, it is the interest of the revenue which will be affected and therefore, the delay in disposing the stay application after almost a period of six years was not justified.
Operative decision and relief
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) since 2018 and more than six years there has been no hearing by the Commissioner (Appeal). Even delay in disposing the appeal without any justifiable cause would be against the interest of the revenue. In this connection, it is important to note that provision of Section 250(6A) of the Act which states that every appeal filed before the first appellate authority where it is possible may be heard and decided within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed. This provision was introduced with effect from 1 June 1999 and although it is a directory provision, in the absence of any justifiable reason for not disposing the appeal filed before the CIT (A) for a period of more than six years same would run contrary to the objective for which Section 250(6A) has been introduced. We hope that the Commissioner (Appeal) would dispose of this appeal as expeditiously as possible. 17.
In view of above, we pass the following order :ORDER (i) Respondent to refund sum of Rs.6,05,030/- being excess adjustment made against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order. (ii) Petitioner to make an application to the first appellate authority for taking up his appeal for hearing and if such an application is made, the Commissioner (Appeal) would hear and decide the appeal keeping in mind the provisions of Section 250(6A) of the Act.
(iii) The concerned Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose the Petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably by 31 May 2025. (iv) Respondent No.5 to investigate the reasons for the delay by the CIT (Appeal) in disposing of the appeal which is pending since January 2018. After completing the enquiry / investigation steps to be taken for addressing the timely disposal of the appeal keeping in mind the objective of Section 250(6A).
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/02/2025 14:21:27
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 250, 220(6), refund adjustment.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: 2016 before the Assessing Officer requesting for stay of the demand raised vide order dated 20 December 2017.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2015-16 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
2016 before the Assessing Officer requesting for stay of the demand raised vide order dated 20 December 2017. It is important to note that Page 1 of 6 dated 29 January 2018 was not decided for a period of almost for more than six years and on 17 April 2024 an order on the stay application came to be passed. In the said order, the Assessing Officer admitted that 20% of the total demand has already been paid by the assessee and, therefore, relying upon Instruction No.1914, the stay was granted for the balance amount of Rs.30,33,240/-.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) since 2018 and more than six years there has been no hearing by the Commissioner (Appeal). Even delay in disposing the appeal without any justifiable cause would be against the interest of the revenue. In this connection, it is important to note that provision of Section 250(6A) of the Act which states that every appeal filed before the first appellate authority where it is possible may be heard and decided within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which…
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 250, 220(6), refund adjustment. The relevant statutory version for AY 2015-16 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 250 — 250 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 220(6) — 220(6) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- refund adjustment — refund adjustment is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 250, 220(6), refund adjustment and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 6 |
| SHA-256 | bdcbfc44c7e7f895fd51035acba7bda4fe7fe130ef9c77fb3928158289b15cc4 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |