2013 (1) TMI 486 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - search u/s 132 - assessee claimed to have paid 50% of the tax due under the revised assessment orders - Held that - 2nd respondent appellate authority shall pass orders on Exts.P1 to P7 appeals filled against assessment completed following a search as expeditiously as possible As the petitioner had already been remitted 50% of tax the recovery pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. However, any attachment that has already effected by the respondents will remain in force, during the pendency of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment orders under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act for the years 2004-05 to 2010-2011.
2. Appeals filed against assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P7).
3. Revision of assessment orders with reduced liability.
4. Continued recovery proceedings despite partial tax payment by the petitioner.
5. Writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala addressed a case involving assessments conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act for the years 2004-05 to 2010-2011 against the petitioner. Subsequently, appeals were filed against these assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P7), which are pending consideration by the 2nd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner claimed that the assessment orders were revised with reduced liability, and she had already paid 50% of the tax due under the revised orders. However, despite the partial payments, the recovery proceedings based on the original assessment orders were ongoing, leading to the filing of a writ petition to challenge this situation.

In response to the petitioner's grievance, the court considered the petitioner's assertion that 50% of the tax liability had been remitted. The Standing Counsel for the revenue objected, citing a previous judgment (Ext.P11) and a pending petition for clarification. Nonetheless, the court, taking into account the partial payment made by the petitioner, ruled that the recovery proceedings should be stayed until the appeals (Exts.P1 to P7) are decided by the appellate authority. The court issued specific directions to expedite the decision on the pending appeals and ordered that recovery pursuant to the assessment orders be put on hold, except for any existing attachments, which would remain in force during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the court granted relief to the petitioner by directing the appellate authority to promptly decide on the pending appeals while temporarily halting the recovery proceedings in light of the partial tax payment made by the petitioner. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the petitioner with the need for due process in resolving the tax assessment disputes.