2017 (12) TMI 1535 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of stay - Held that - It is noted that in the earlier writ petition disposed of by this Court, while staying the impugned directions of the Tribunal, on compliance of the directions issued by this Court, a further direction was issued to the Tribunal to dispose of that appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14 on or before 31st January 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said appeal is under consideration before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, a similar order would have to be made in so far as these appeals are concerned. Accordingly, the stay granted by the Tribunal is extended till the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, subject to compliance of aforesaid directions by the petitioner. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals, out of which, these writ petitions arise, on or before 31st of March 2018. It is needless to observe that in view of the specific direction issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, both parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal in that regard.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deposit of outstanding dues and extension of stay for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13.

Detailed Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed by the assessee, a Private Limited Company, challenging the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit 55% of the outstanding dues for the mentioned Assessment Years and retain the balance in a designated bank account while extending the interim stay. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal could not have directed additional payments or modifications to the earlier order passed during the extension of the stay. The counsel argued that the Tribunal mechanically followed a previous order without considering the specific circumstances of the case (para 3-5).

Regarding the specific Assessment Years, the counsel highlighted discrepancies in the Tribunal's directions compared to previous court orders. For instance, in Assessment Year 2012-13, the Tribunal had directed a 50% deposit, contrary to a previous court order reducing it to 30%. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2011-12, an additional deposit condition was imposed by the Tribunal, which was stayed by the court in a separate petition. The petitioner sought an extension of the stay without any additional conditions (para 5).

The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing caution when granting interim orders, especially concerning revenue matters. He argued that the Tribunal should follow the parameters set by a previous court order that directed a 55% payment and retaining 20% balance for the same assessee. He suggested that consistency should be maintained in such cases (para 6).

After considering the arguments, the court analyzed the outstanding dues and payments made by the assessee for each Assessment Year. It observed that for 2009-10 and 2010-11, around 50% of the dues were paid, while for 2011-12 and 2012-13, approximately 30% of the dues were paid. The court noted that the Tribunal had followed a previous court order in a similar case, which reigned in 75% of the outstanding dues. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee for the balance of 25% for 2009-10 and 2010-11, and pay the remaining 20% for 2011-12 by a specified date (para 8-9).

Regarding Assessment Year 2012-13, where a previous court order reduced the deposit percentage to 30%, the court held that the Tribunal could not direct a 55% payment again as the previous order had not been interfered with. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee for 45% of the dues and await further orders from a pending appeal. The stay was extended for all appeals subject to compliance with the court's directions, with a deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals by a specified date (para 10-12).