2018 (10) TMI 993 - HC - Income Tax

Non communication to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) - Held that - Tribunal should inform parties well in advance by assigning specific dates of hearing on these Miscellaneous Applications. They should be taken in the order in which they have been instituted/filed. None should be compelled to move this Court and seek an out of turn hearing. That would mean if somebody approaches this Court, gets a priority and expeditious hearing, others will have to wait for outcome of their Miscellaneous Applications for years together. This is not a happy scenario and it is for the Tribunal to set right the lapses and put its house in order. We dispose of this Petition by clarifying that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions or on the merits of the application. Let respondent No.2 not initiate any coercive measures to recover the amount of taxes and penalty, if any, in terms of the Tribunal s initial order dated 1st June, 2018 simply because the petitioner s Miscellaneous Application is pending.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to communicate a specific date for hearing a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Delay in hearing the Miscellaneous Application and the petitioner's request for an expeditious resolution.
3. Directions to the Tribunal to prioritize and dispose of the application by a specified date.
4. Emphasis on the Tribunal informing parties in advance about hearing dates for Miscellaneous Applications to avoid undue delays and out-of-turn hearings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court noted the petitioner's concern regarding the lack of communication from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding a specific date for the hearing of a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court expressed surprise at the Tribunal's failure in this regard.

2. The petitioner sought an expeditious resolution of the Miscellaneous Application pending before the Tribunal. The petitioner had filed the application on 26th July 2018 and had also requested a speedy hearing through a letter dated the same day.

3. In response to the delay and uncertainty surrounding the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application, the High Court directed the Tribunal to prioritize the application and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. The court set a deadline for the disposal of the application by 31st December 2018 to ensure timely resolution.

4. The High Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal informing parties well in advance about the specific dates for the hearing of Miscellaneous Applications. The court highlighted the need for orderly proceedings to prevent parties from seeking out-of-turn hearings, which could lead to prolonged delays for other applicants. The court urged the Tribunal to address any lapses and streamline its processes for efficient resolution of such applications.

Conclusion:
The High Court clarified that its directive did not express any opinion on the merits of the application or the contentions of the parties. It instructed the respondent not to take coercive measures for tax recovery based on the Tribunal's initial order dated 1st June 2018 while the petitioner's Miscellaneous Application remained pending. The court also directed the respondent's counsel to inform the Tribunal's office about the order for compliance.