2022 (10) TMI 1195 - AT - Income Tax

Stay on recovery against outstanding demands - assessee submitted that the final assessment orders passed by AO giving rise to the present demands are invalid due to non-mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) - HELD THAT - DIN has not been mentioned. Therefore, as per the extant CBDT circular, referred to elsewhere in the order, such orders are to be declared as non est and never been issued. Though, we agree with learned DR that these aspects have to be thrashed out by the parties at the time of full length hearing of the appeals, however, there is good ground for grant of absolute stay on recovery of demands as prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to stay his hands from recovery of the outstanding demand pertaining to the impugned assessment years for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. As accepting assessee s prayer, which was not opposed by learned Departmental Representative, we direct the Registry to fix the corresponding appeals for hearing on 07.02.2023, a date consented by both the parties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay on recovery of outstanding demands for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed applications seeking a stay on the recovery of outstanding demands for two assessment years. The counsel for the assessee argued that the final assessment orders were invalid and void-ab-initio due to being barred by limitation and the absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by Circular No. 19/2019 issued by the CBDT.

2. The counsel highlighted that as per section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer must pass the final assessment order within 30 days of receiving directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). However, the final assessment orders were passed after a significant delay, rendering them grossly barred by limitation. Additionally, the absence of DIN in the assessment orders further supported the argument that they were non est and deemed to have never been issued.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that it was not required to delve into the merits of the issues leading to the demands at this stage. Nevertheless, they found that the assessee had presented a strong prima facie case. The absence of DIN in the final assessment orders, as highlighted by the counsel, supported the decision to grant a stay on the recovery of outstanding demands for a period of 180 days or until the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier.

4. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to refrain from recovering the outstanding demand for the specified assessment years and scheduled the appeals for an early hearing date agreed upon by both parties. The order emphasized the importance of timely submission of paper books for the appeal proceedings and warned that seeking unnecessary adjournments might lead to the vacation of the stay order.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the stay applications, providing relief to the assessee and ensuring that the recovery of outstanding demands was put on hold pending the appeal proceedings scheduled for early next year.