2012 (7) TMI 206 - HC - Income Tax

Petition against dismissal of stay application filed u/s 220(6) during pendency of appeal before the Tribunal - Held that - Since appeals are pending consideration before the third respondent for more than one year, hence, it is for the third respondent to consider the appeals and pass final orders on merits. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders, petition under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, dismissal of application for stay by fourth respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 series assessment orders before the second respondent, resulting in dismissal of some cases and partial allowance of others in Ext.P2 series orders. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 series appeals before the third respondent/Tribunal. Additionally, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent with a petition under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act seeking a stay on the liability during the appeal process.

The fourth respondent, after considering the application dated 24.10.2011, dismissed it through Ext.P4 order dated 07.05.2012. The order directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the outstanding liability by 25.05.2012 and the remaining balance in monthly installments of Rs.5,00,000. This directive forms the basis for the challenge in the writ petition.

Upon hearing the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2, and 4, the Court noted that the appeals were filed before the third respondent on 14.04.2011, while the petition under Section 220 (6) was submitted to the fourth respondent on 24.10.2011. The petitioner did not file any interlocutory application for stay before the third respondent, possibly due to the pending petition before the fourth respondent, which was dismissed on 07.05.2012.

Despite the circumstances, the Court emphasized that the appeals have been pending before the third respondent for over a year. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the third respondent to consider the appeals and issue final orders on merit promptly. Consequently, the Court declined interference and dismissed the writ petition, urging the third respondent to expedite the process in accordance with the law.