2013 (10) TMI 304 - HC - Income Tax

Application for stay to be decided expeditiously Held that - Respondent No. 3 directed to consider and decide the application for stay expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of such applications. Recovery against the Petitioner Held that - For a period of one month or till the decision on the applications, whichever is later, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for enforcing recovery in question Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 pending before respondent No.3.
2. Delay in deciding appeals and stay applications.
3. Consideration of application for stay and appeal expeditiously.
4. Direction for early hearing of appeals and stay applications.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought various reliefs, including directing respondent No.1 & 3 to decide the stay applications and appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 expeditiously. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the pending appeals and stay applications before respondent No.3, urging for prompt resolution. The respondent's counsel cited the complexity of block assessments spanning 7 years, requiring time for thorough examination. The respondent requested a reasonable period to consider the stay application and appeal filed after the initial appeal submission in January 2012.

Considering the pending stay application with respondent No.3, the court decided to provide specific directions. The petitioner was instructed to file applications in all appeals for a hearing on the stay application and early appeal hearing. Respondent No.3 was mandated to promptly consider and decide on the stay application within 30 days of receiving such applications. Additionally, the court directed respondent No.3 to endeavor to decide the appeals within four months, as suggested by the respondent's counsel. To prevent coercive action against the petitioner during the decision period, a one-month grace period or until a decision was made on the applications was granted.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the application with the stipulated directions, ensuring a timely resolution of the pending stay applications and appeals. The judgment aimed to balance the petitioner's request for expeditious consideration with the respondent's need for adequate time to assess the complex block assessments effectively.