2016 (6) TMI 1132 - HC - Income Tax

Grant of stay - recovery proceedings - Held that - From the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the proceedings of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals it is evident that the hearing of the appeals have been concluded and all that is to be done is to pass an order. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents/Department, on instructions, submitted that orders will be passed within a period of eight weeks.Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would be inequitable to vacate the interim orders, which have been in force for almost 2 1/2 years in the first writ petition and for about 1 1/2 years in the other writ petitions, at this stage of the matter, especially, when the appeals filed by the petitioner have been finally heard and orders are to be passed shortly. In the light of the fact that the appeal petitions filed against the orders of assessment have been heard and orders are to be passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, which according to the respondents, will be passed within a period of eight weeks, no action for recovery or no other coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned orders. Further action by the respondent department shall abide by the orders to be passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, in the appeals which have been filed by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
In a series of writ petitions, the challenge was against the orders imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first writ petition was filed in 2013, and an interim order was granted by the court. The petitioner's contention was that the authority had no jurisdiction to impose conditions for grant of stay as the matter was already decided by the Tribunal. The court granted interim stay orders which were subsequently extended as more orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had taken up the appeals for hearing, and the court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit updating the status of the appeals. The petitioner submitted details of the appeal hearings, documents submitted, and the stage of proceedings. The court noted that the appeal hearings had concluded, and only the passing of orders remained.

The court observed that it would be unfair to vacate the interim orders that had been in place for several years, especially when the appeals had been heard, and orders were pending. The court considered it inequitable to disturb the interim orders at this stage when the appeals had been finalized and orders were to be passed shortly. The court directed that no recovery or coercive action should be taken against the petitioner based on the impugned orders. The respondent department was instructed to abide by the orders to be passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in the filed appeals. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.