2013 (10) TMI 220 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment - Petitioner contended that he was not liable for payment of income tax but inspite of this, a liability has been imposed upon the petitioner for disentitling of exemption Held that - revenue to consider the stay application and decide the issue expeditiously - direction issued to dispose off the appeal expeditiously.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks to quash an order imposing income tax despite prior exemption granted by ITAT. Delay in deciding stay application and appeal by CIT(A). Respondent argues against exemption due to search and seizure post-ITAT order. Comparison to a similar case, Satya Narayan Sharma, where directions were issued to decide stay applications and appeals promptly.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the imposition of income tax for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 despite earlier exemption granted by the ITAT. The delay in deciding the appeal and stay application by the CIT(A) prompted the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court. Respondent's counsel argued against exemption citing search and seizure post-ITAT order. The court refrained from deciding the matter pending before CIT(A) and emphasized the need for expert consideration and resolution of the dispute.

In a related case, Satya Narayan Sharma, a Division Bench directed the authorities to promptly decide stay applications and appeals for the petitioner. The court considered the complexity of block assessments spanning multiple years due to search and seizure. Directions were issued to expedite the decision-making process and avoid coercive recovery actions during the pendency of applications.

The High Court disposed of the current petitions in line with the directions issued in Satya Narayan Sharma, applying the same principles to ensure timely resolution of appeals and stay applications. Petitioners were granted liberty to challenge adverse orders before appropriate forums. The court emphasized adherence to the given directions and concluded the matter without imposing any costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delayed decision-making on stay applications and appeals, the impact of search and seizure on exemption claims, and the need for timely resolution of tax-related disputes. The court relied on a previous case for guidance and provided clear directions for expediting the process while allowing petitioners the right to challenge unfavorable decisions.