2014 (1) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Held that - no objection and/or representation has been filed before the Tax Recovery Officer against the attachment of its Bank Accounts on 2 September 2013 and has accepted the same. Therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner to now make a grievance with regard to the attachment of the bank accounts done by the Tax Recovery Officer almost two months ago - Rectification application has already been disposed off by the AO without granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing of the order - The petitioner has already filed an appeal to CIT(A) it would be appropriate if the CIT(A) were to deal with the stay application, if filed by the Petitioner, within two weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is available.

Issues:
1. Stay of tax demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
2. Attachment of bank accounts by Tax Recovery Officer pending appeal.
3. Disposal of rectification application by the Assessing Officer.
4. Compliance with court directions regarding personal hearing and financial hardship in stay applications.

Analysis:
1. The petition involved a challenge against the Assessing Officer's order dismissing the petitioner's application for a stay of tax demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the stay application was contrary to court precedents, which emphasized considering the prima facie case and financial hardship of the applicant before disposal. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, as required, and set aside the order rejecting the stay application.

2. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the attachment of bank accounts by the Tax Recovery Officer pending appeal. The court noted that the petitioner had not objected to the attachment at the time it was done, and therefore, could not raise grievances later. The court directed the CIT(A) to handle any stay application filed by the petitioner expeditiously and restrained further coercive measures for recovery until the application was disposed of.

3. Another issue was the disposal of the rectification application by the Assessing Officer. The court observed that the rectification application had already been disposed of, and there was no need for interference. The petitioner was advised to address any grievances in the appeal before the CIT(A).

4. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court directions regarding personal hearing and consideration of the prima facie case and financial condition of the petitioner in stay applications. It directed the CIT(A) to handle the petitioner's stay application promptly, following the court's guidelines, and allowed for the disposal of the entire appeal if deemed appropriate during the hearing of the stay application.

In conclusion, the court set aside the Assessing Officer's order rejecting the stay application, instructed the CIT(A) to handle the stay application promptly, and restrained further coercive measures for recovery until the application was resolved. The petitioner was advised to address any grievances in the appeal process, and compliance with court directions regarding stay applications was emphasized throughout the judgment.

← Previous Next →