2011 (7) TMI 811 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery of Tax - notice u/s 226(3) - stay of recovery - held that - It is difficult to accept the submission that recovery of the amount specified in the certificate is liable to be stayed, just because the notice of demand mentioned an amount higher than that which could lawfully have been recovered from Panagarh or its debtors. An error in the figure, in a notice of demand does not vitiate the demand. the purported reasons made out in the writ petition for payment of Rs.15 lakhs to Panagarh, notwithstanding the notice dated 24th January, 2011 are frivolous and not sustainable in the eye of law, for payment to the Tax Recovery Officer upon receipt would tantamount to discharge of liability to Panagarh to the extent of the amount paid to the Tax Recovery Officer. The threat of auction of the potatoes could be no ground in law to ignore the notice dated 24th January, 2011. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge to notice of demand calling for payment within a specified time frame.
3. Assessment order reducing tax liability and subsequent appeals.
4. Stay application for demand pending appeal.
5. Interpretation of section 225(2) of the Income-tax Act regarding recovery stay.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, West Bengal Consumers Co-operative Federation Ltd. (CONFED), challenged a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, demanding payment to the Tax Recovery Officer of all dues to Panagarh Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The notice warned of consequences for default in payment and personal liability of the Officer-in-Charge if dues were discharged after receipt of the notice.

2. CONFED also contested a notice of demand requiring payment of Rs. 15 lakhs within a specified timeframe, failing which recovery would be initiated under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. An order of assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax assessed Panagarh to a substantial tax amount, which was later reduced on appeal to Rs. 15 lakhs. The appeal process involved the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

4. Panagarh filed an application for stay of the demand of Rs. 15 lakhs pending appeal, which was a subject of contention in the case.

5. The judgment delved into the interpretation of section 225(2) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the stay of recovery when an order is modified in appeal. The court emphasized that a reduction in tax liability does not automatically stay the recovery of the entire amount specified in the certificate, but only the part reduced in appeal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ application challenging the notices and demands, stating that the recovery of the reduced tax liability amount was justified, and the grounds presented for non-compliance with the notices were deemed frivolous and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and obligations despite potential consequences such as auction threats.