2017 (3) TMI 1697 - HC - Income Tax

Applications for stay of demand - not being treated as an assessee in default in terms of Section 220(6) - Held that - As the CIT(A) had almost concluded the hearing of the appeals (as informed by the petitioner), the deposit of 15% could be kept in abeyance. However, as the same is now denied by the Revenue making it a disputed issue, we see no reason to exercise our writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the order sheets annexed to affidavit dated 2nd March, 2017 is evidence of the adjournments granted on various occasion at the request of the petitioner and also filing of an additional ground on 31st January, 2017 which would further delay the proceedings. We see no reason in these facts to interfere in the present petition. CIT(A) need not await for the deposit of tax as directed by the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 to decide the pending appeals before him for the Assessment year 2007-08., 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. This for the reason that it is not a condition precedent that the disputed amounts be deposited before the appeal can be heard and disposed of by the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that the pending appeals before the CIT(A) would not by itself in any manner fetter the rights of the Revenue to adopt such proceedings as are available to it in law, to recover its taxes in terms of the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to two Orders dated 28th October, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) regarding stay of demand and being treated as an assessee in default under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged two orders dated 28th October, 2016, related to demands for different assessment years. The orders granted conditional stays on the petitioner depositing specific amounts for each assessment year in installments. The petitioner's appeals were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The hearing of the appeals had almost concluded, but the CIT(A) refused to accept written submissions on 8th February, 2017, citing the pending petitions. The court adjourned the case to allow the CIT(A) to conclude the hearings. The respondent filed an affidavit pointing out adjournments requested by the petitioner and the filing of an additional ground of appeal, causing further delays.

The petitioner disputed the respondent's affidavit, claiming the appeal was at a conclusive stage. However, the court refrained from delving into the correctness of the affidavits for the disposal of the petition. The court found no reason to entertain the petition as the petitioner had accepted the directions in the impugned orders and only sought an adjournment for payment. The court noted the adjournments requested by the petitioner and the additional ground filed, leading to further delays in the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions, clarifying that the CIT(A) was not required to await the tax deposit directed by the impugned orders to decide the pending appeals.

The court clarified that the pending appeals should not restrict the Revenue's rights to recover taxes as per the impugned orders. The court emphasized that the disputed amounts need not be deposited before the appeal can be heard and disposed of by the CIT(A). Ultimately, both petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the challenges faced by the petitioner regarding the stay of demand and being treated as an assessee in default, the proceedings before the CIT(A), the disputes over the stage of the appeal, and the court's decision to dismiss the petitions while clarifying the CIT(A)'s authority to proceed with the pending appeals.