2018 (10) TMI 248 - HC - Income Tax

Vacating the stay already granted - direction to pay 20% of the disputed demand and by granting stay for the rest of the demand till the disposal of the first appeal - Held that - Considering the fact that the first respondent, while considering the stay petition, at the first instance, has originally granted 100% stay and considering the fact that the petitioner is also ready to co-operate for the disposal of the appeal within the time stipulated by this Court, it is of view that the interest of justice would be met, if this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner (a) This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to take up the appeal on 03.10.2018 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (b) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on the said day i.e. on 03.10.2018, either by himself or through his authorized representative, without fail and co-operate with the first respondent for the disposal of the appeal without seeking adjournment. (c) If the petitioner or his authorized representative fails to appear before the first respondent on the said day for any reason, the order impugned in this writ petition stands restored.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order vacating stay on disputed demand and imposing conditions.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual and Assessee, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 under the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made additions, leading to an appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner sought a stay on the disputed demand pending appeal, which was initially granted for 100% tax with a condition to appear for early hearing. However, the stay was vacated on 06.09.2018 due to the Assessee seeking time to present the case, contrary to the condition imposed earlier. The petitioner contended that they were ready with submissions, but time was requested at the first respondent's instance. The respondents argued that the Assessee was uncooperative on the stipulated date, leading to the modification of the stay order to pay 20% of the demand.

The Court noted the conflicting versions regarding the Assessee's readiness on 06.09.2018 but decided not to delve into this disputed question. Acknowledging the Assessee's willingness to cooperate for an early hearing fixed by the Court, the judgment favored justice. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the first respondent to take up the appeal on 03.10.2018 for disposal on merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear without seeking adjournment, with a warning that failure to do so would restore the impugned order. The judgment concluded without costs, closing connected miscellaneous petitions.