2014 (10) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

Stay application Imposition of condition Held that - The demand is high-pitched - But, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, cannot really be determined, without reference to the facts of each case - The condition imposed by the respondents directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount, in 15 instalments may be wrong - there are two options open to the Court - one is to set aside the order and to remand the matter back for a fresh consideration in accordance with law - The other is to impose a reasonable condition for the grant of stay and to direct the appeal itself to be disposed of - The second course of action appears to be a better course of action - an interim stay is granted the demand now made Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to imposition of condition for grant of stay of demand of Assessment Officer's order.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the condition imposed by the respondents for the grant of stay of demand of the Assessment Officer's order. The petitioner had received an assessment order for the year 2006-07, which was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, leading to a fresh order in 2014. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition, which was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, directing the petitioner to pay the entire demand amount in instalments. The petitioner then appealed against this order, which was rejected by the second respondent, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The main contention of the petitioner was that the inclusion of the entire profit earned by its subsidiary company located outside India in its total income was unjust, leading to a significantly higher assessed income in the revised order. The petitioner argued for an unconditional stay, citing relevant instructions and legal precedents to support their claim. The petitioner emphasized that the foreign subsidiary's income should only be added to the petitioner's income if dividends are declared or accrued to the petitioner.

The High Court, after considering the submissions, acknowledged that the demand was high-pitched but noted that reasonableness is case-specific. The Court highlighted that while the condition imposed by the respondents might be incorrect, there were options available, including setting aside the order for fresh consideration or imposing a reasonable condition for stay while directing the appeal's disposal. The Court opted for the latter approach, granting an interim stay of the demand subject to the petitioner depositing a specified sum within a set timeframe and directing the Appellate Commissioner to dispose of the appeal within four months.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting an interim stay of the demand with a specified condition, emphasizing the need for a reasonable approach in such cases and directing timely disposal of the appeal.