2021 (7) TMI 1320 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - relief sought to direct the first respondent to entertain the petitioners' appeals on merits without insisting for any pre-deposit amount at the rate of 20% of the demand - HELD THAT - Under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 no such pre-deposit for preferring an appeal is contemplated. Thus, the petitioners are not liable to pay any pre-deposit for the purpose of considering the appeals. If at all the appeals are in order and in accordance with the other procedures contemplated, the said appeals are to be taken on file and to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. Thus, the petitioners are not liable to make any pre-deposit in view of Section 246A of the Act. It is made clear that if any stay petitions are filed along with the appeals, the said petitions are also to be considered before passing final orders in the main appeals in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
- Relief sought to direct the first respondent to entertain the petitioners' appeals without pre-deposit amount under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court pertained to writ petitions seeking relief to direct the first respondent to entertain the petitioners' appeals dated various dates without insisting on any pre-deposit amount at the rate of 20% of the demand. The court observed that under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no provision exists for a pre-deposit when preferring an appeal. Therefore, the petitioners were not liable to pay any pre-deposit for the purpose of considering the appeals. The court emphasized that if the appeals were in order and complied with the necessary procedures, they should be taken on file and disposed of on merits promptly, while granting the petitioners an opportunity. It was clarified that no pre-deposit was required in light of Section 246A of the Act. Additionally, the judgment highlighted that if any stay petitions were filed alongside the appeals, those petitions should also be duly considered before final orders were passed on the main appeals in accordance with the law. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with no costs imposed.