2019 (6) TMI 1587 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - Interim stay seeked - HELD THAT - There is no dispute or disagreement before this Court today that the conditions imposed has since been complied with or in other words, a sum of ₹ 1 Crores has since been paid by the writ petitioner before 07.06.2019. Therefore, the interim stay granted pending appeal on the file of the second respondent is now operating. As revenue submits that it may be desirable to have the appeal heard out and disposed of expeditiously and requested that there be a direction in this regard. Writ petitioner, on instructions, submits that the writ petitioner assessee would cooperate for early disposal of the appeal now pending on the file of the second respondent. Interim order of stay qua order of original authority/demand, which is now operating owing to compliance of the writ petitioner with the conditions imposed made vide earlier proceedings in instant writ petition will continue to operate till the disposal of the aforesaid appeal before the second respondent.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal for interim stay of demand - Compliance with conditions for stay - Direction for expeditious disposal of appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition where the petitioner, an individual assessee, was assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had appealed against the assessment order to the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner sought interim stay of demand pending appeal, which was not initially granted, leading to the filing of the instant writ petition challenging the refusal of interim stay. The court noted that a partial payment had been made by the petitioner as per an earlier order, and the remaining amount was to be paid by specific dates. The compliance with the payment conditions led to the interim stay being granted.

The court acknowledged the compliance by the petitioner with the payment conditions, resulting in the interim stay being in effect. The revenue's counsel requested an expeditious disposal of the pending appeal, which the petitioner's counsel agreed to cooperate with. Consequently, the court set aside the earlier order refusing interim stay and directed the second respondent to expedite the disposal of the main appeal within three months from the date of the current order, ensuring the petitioner's opportunity for a personal hearing.

The judgment emphasized that the interim stay on the original demand, which was granted due to compliance with payment conditions, would remain in force until the final disposal of the appeal by the second respondent. The court concluded the writ petition with the specified orders and observations, highlighting the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions and the absence of any cost orders.