2019 (6) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - imposed the condition of depositing 30% of the demand - HELD THAT - As in the case of TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 76 (1) , NEW DELHI ORS. 2019 (1) TMI 1365 - DELHI HIGH COURT it says that some reasonable time could be considered by this Court for depositing 20% and appropriate directions are issued for disposing of the appeals. There shall be stay of recovery of tax determined for the assessment year 2013-2014 subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded within six weeks from today and another 10% within six weeks thereafter. The petitioner continues to enjoy the protection granted by this Court subject to complying with the condition imposed by the order. In default without reference to court the stay shall be deemed to have been vacated. The 2nd respondent considers and disposes of appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Non-compliance with the condition imposed in order Ext.P4 by the Co-operative Bank regarding the deposit of 30% of the demand.
2. Issuance of notice under Section 221(1) by the 1st respondent due to the non-compliance.
3. Challenge to the notice Ext.P8 and direction for disposing of appeal Ext.P3.
4. Discretion of the court in considering the challenge and issuing directions regarding the appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, filed an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2013-2014 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent granted a stay in order Ext.P4 but required the petitioner to deposit 30% of the demand, which the petitioner did not comply with. Subsequently, a notice under Section 221(1) was issued by the 1st respondent due to this non-compliance, leading to the writ petition challenging the notice Ext.P8 and seeking directions for disposing of the appeal Ext.P3.

During the proceedings, the court noted the careful framing of the writ prayers by the petitioner, aiming to challenge Ext.P8 and seek directions for Ext.P3 appeal. The respondent's objection was that there was no challenge to Ext.P4. The court, considering the discretion and the order passed by the 2nd respondent, deliberated on the importance of the statutory appeal as a legal remedy. The petitioner's counsel referenced a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and proposed a deposit of 20% within a reasonable time for stay or appeal disposal.

In its final judgment, the court ordered a stay of tax recovery for the assessment year 2013-2014, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded within six weeks and another 10% within the subsequent six weeks. The petitioner was directed to comply with the conditions imposed, with the stay deemed vacated in case of default. The 2nd respondent was instructed to expedite the appeal disposal within six months from the date of the court's order.