Om Vision Infraspace Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
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 reported High Court matter addresses prolonged first-appeal pendency and protects the taxpayer from recovery while the statutory appeal remains undecided. It is useful chiefly as a tax-administration/stay precedent.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 220(6); 250
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery: The reported High Court matter addresses prolonged first-appeal pendency and protects the taxpayer from recovery while the statutory appeal remains undecided. It is useful chiefly as a tax-administration/stay precedent.
Material facts and background
speedily dispose of such appeals by CIT (Appeals). 8. Be that as it may. In the facts of the case by order dated 26.03.2020, the petitioner
restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action. 9. In view of the above observations, let
respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the next date of hearing as placing on record Page 9 of 12
(Appeals) and time bound programme for disposal of backlog of 5,80,188 pending appeals as on 26.09.2024.
10. Stand over to 15.10.2024. listed on Top of the Board.”
the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have tendered the affidavits-in-reply.
occasions, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 5 instead of addressing the issue of pendency of the Appeals pending before the CIT(Appeals) has
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for learned advocate
Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respective respondents.
“1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Tushar Hemani for learned advocate Vaibhai Parikh for the petitioner learned Senior Standing Counsel Karan Sanghani for the respondent.
CIT(Appeals) in the faceless regime. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sangani, submitted upon
However, it is not disputed by learned Senior Standing Counsel Sangani that in Page 3 of 12
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
“1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani has tendered affidavitin-reply on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in response to the order dated 17.09.2024. The same is ordered to be taken on record. 2. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5, it reveals that the total appeals pending before the appellate authority as on 26.09.2024 are as under: Category
restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action. 9. In view of the above observations, let
recurring issues, covered issues, etc., we are of the opinion that no recovery should be made from the assessees during the pendency of the Appeals. Therefore, in all these petitions, there shall be no recovery of any outstanding dues from the petitioners whose Appeals are
Operative decision and relief
occasions, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 5 instead of addressing the issue of pendency of the Appeals pending before the CIT(Appeals) has
respondent Nos.3 to 5 have ignored the same and repeated what is stated in the earlier affidavit with an addition only reference to annual Central Action Plan 2024-25 and Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, 2024 for issue of pendency of more than 5,80,000 Appeals before the CIT (Appeals).
not interested in resolution of the issue of pendency of the Appeals the manner in which it ought to have been resolved by classifying the Appeals
recurring issues, covered issues, etc., we are of the opinion that no recovery should be made from the assessees during the pendency of the Appeals. Therefore, in all these petitions, there shall be no recovery of any outstanding dues from the petitioners whose Appeals are
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PALAK RAJUBHAI BRAHMBHATT, PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/10/2024 12:14:33
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 Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery. The operative result is classified as Interim no-recovery direction for petitioners with pending appeals; Rule issued; petitions remained pending. 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 Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery. 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.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Gujarat High Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 220(6), 250. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
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 | Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged. |
| 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: Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 220(6), 250.
- Your matter is at a comparable appeal/revision stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Gujarat High Court considered: speedily dispose of such appeals by CIT (Appeals).
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 Om Vision Infraspace Pvt. Ltd.?
The reported High Court matter addresses prolonged first-appeal pendency and protects the taxpayer from recovery while the statutory appeal remains undecided. It is useful chiefly as a tax-administration/stay precedent.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
speedily dispose of such appeals by CIT (Appeals). 8. Be that as it may.
What did the Gujarat High Court ultimately decide?
occasions, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 5 instead of addressing the issue of pendency of the Appeals pending before the CIT(Appeals) has respondent Nos.3 to 5 have ignored the same and repeated what is stated in the earlier affidavit with an addition only reference to annual Central Action Plan 2024-25 and Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, 2024 for issue of pendency of more than 5,80,000 Appeals before the CIT (Appeals). not interested in resolution of the issue of pendency of the Appeals the manner in which it…
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery. The operative result is classified as Interim no-recovery direction for petitioners with pending appeals; Rule issued; petitions remained pending. 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 220(6), 250. The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata 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 Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery . 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. Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged.
Section / provision impact
- 220(6) — 220(6) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of long-pending cit(a) appeal and stay of recovery. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 250 — 250 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of long-pending cit(a) appeal and stay of recovery. 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 220(6), 250 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Long-pending CIT(A) appeal and stay of recovery. The operative result is classified as Interim no-recovery direction for petitioners with pending appeals; Rule issued; petitions remained pending. 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 authenticated official judgment PDF
| Packaged source class | Official primary copy, digitally signed and authenticated |
|---|---|
| Pages | 12 |
| SHA-256 | f4913eb516cfc86f5d19594163b98b87adc602da1334b5cedc80e8a04d90cd73 |
| Original source URL | Official primary packaged locally; public page does not rely on third-party source links. |
| Source authentication | Official primary - valid embedded issuing-authority digital signature |