2003 (9) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

An order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit the additional rectified demand of Rs. 138.02 crores in respect of the assessment year 2000-2001, within the specified time, is under challenge in this writ petition. - In the immediately preceding assessment year on an almost similar set of facts, the petitioner was directed to deposit only a sum of Rs. 140 crores against a demand of approximately Rs. 405 crores, the impugned direction by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner to pay the whole of the amount in dispute as a pre-condition for stay of recovery of the demand, at a stage when the first appeal is pending, cannot be said to be reasonable - Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the additional rectified demand

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order directing the petitioner to deposit additional rectified demand for the assessment year 2000-2001.
2. Reasonableness of the direction to pay the entire disputed amount as a pre-condition for stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Request for expeditious disposal of the appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order requiring the deposit of an additional rectified demand of Rs. 138.02 crores for the assessment year 2000-2001. The petitioner contended that the disallowance under section 43B of the Income-tax Act was unsustainable due to the regular accounting method followed. Comparisons were drawn with a previous assessment year where a similar situation resulted in a lower deposit requirement. The petitioner sought relief from the obligation to deposit the entire demand amount before the appeal's disposal.

2. The Assessing Officer justified the direction to pay the full disputed amount in instalments, considering the substantial sum involved. However, the High Court found this requirement unreasonable, especially when compared to a previous assessment year where a significantly lower deposit was mandated for a similar demand situation. The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the disparity in deposit amounts between the two assessment years and ruled that the current directive to pay the entire disputed amount upfront was not justifiable.

3. Additionally, the petitioner requested the Tribunal to expedite the appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000, which was repeatedly delayed due to adjournments sought by the Income-tax Department. The High Court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of appeals, especially when issues have a recurring effect. The court directed the Tribunal to prioritize and expedite the pending appeal to prevent unnecessary delays in the resolution of tax matters. The judgment concluded by instructing the petitioner to make staggered payments and prohibiting coercive recovery actions until the appeal's final decision.