2018 (9) TMI 1797 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that though against the said interlocutory orders, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy, as the matters are pending before the concerned Appellate Authority/Administrative Authority and the interim communication asking the petitioner-Company to deposit 15% of the disputed demand, that too in three installments, does not deserve any interference, at this stage. It is directed that the petitioner-Company shall deposit ₹ 10 lakhs out of the disputed demand on or before 30.09.2018 and the concerned first Appellate Authority, namely, CIT (Appeals) may be moved by the Assessee for early hearing of the appeal subject to the aforesaid deposit. CIT(A) may consider the request of the asseessee-Company to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

Summary

Issues:
Interlocutory Orders by Income Tax Authorities, Recovery of Installments, Financial Hardship of the Company, Special Bench Decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Appropriate Remedy for Interlocutory Orders, Direction to Deposit Disputed Demand, Early Hearing of Appeal by CIT (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The petitioner-Company challenged the Interlocutory Orders by the Income Tax Authorities seeking to recover installments against a disputed demand. The Income-tax Officer directed the company to deposit the first installment by a specified date. The petitioner argued financial hardship due to pending appeal and requested interim protection.

2. The petitioner contended that the company's financial situation prevented it from making the payment, urging for relief until the appeal was resolved. The petitioner sought intervention based on a Special Bench decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the issue.

3. The Court noted that the writ petition might not be the appropriate remedy as the matters were pending before the Appellate Authority. The Court opined that the directive to deposit 15% of the disputed demand in installments did not warrant interference at that stage, considering the ongoing proceedings.

4. Despite this, considering the unique circumstances, the Court directed the petitioner-Company to deposit a specified amount of the disputed demand by a set date. The Court further instructed the Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal upon the mentioned deposit, allowing the company to request an early hearing for the resolution of the appeal.

5. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the mentioned directions, emphasizing no costs to be incurred. A copy of the order was to be promptly sent to the Respondents for compliance and awareness of the decision.