2019 (6) TMI 1302 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - recovery proceedings - pre-deposits - HELD TAT - The very fact that four equal installments are granted by the 2nd respondent indicates consideration of all relevant circumstances including the hardship which was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. The case does not warrant interference against the discretion exercised by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. He alternatively submits that the petitioner since has established a few bona fides by depositing ₹ 98,44,201/- (Rupees Ninety eight lakh forty four thousand two hundred and one only) the four equal installments granted in Ext.P5 can be extended reasonably by this Court. After perusing the Ext.P5, we are satisfied that the condition imposed cannot be treated as arbitrary or unreasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. The 2nd respondent has granted four equal installments. In all the circumstances granting four equal installments amounts to granting sufficient time for complying with the condition imposed by the appellate authority. But keeping in mind the hardship now pleaded by the counsel appearing for the petitioner as an exceptional case and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the installments are extended from four to six installments.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to deposit condition of 20% and installment directions in Ext.P5

In this case, the petitioner challenged Ext.P5, which directed the deposit of 20% of the total demand for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 in four equal monthly installments. The petitioner argued that the 20% benchmark deposit was unwarranted as they had already deposited a substantial amount. The respondent contended that Ext.P5 reflected a discretionary decision to grant stay of the assessment order, considering all relevant circumstances and hardships. The court, after perusing Ext.P5, found the condition imposed to be reasonable and not arbitrary. However, in light of the hardship presented by the petitioner, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and extended the installments from four to six, allowing the petitioner to pay the 20% demand in six equal monthly installments. The modified order emphasized the importance of timely payment to avoid revocation of the stay granted and allowed for completion of installments by a specified date. The court disposed of the stay petitions for the relevant assessment years accordingly.

This judgment involved a challenge to the deposit condition of 20% and installment directions in Ext.P5. The petitioner argued against the necessity of the 20% deposit, citing a substantial amount already deposited. The respondent defended Ext.P5 as a discretionary decision considering relevant circumstances and hardships. The court, upon review, found the condition imposed in Ext.P5 to be reasonable. However, acknowledging the hardship presented, the court extended the installments from four to six, allowing the petitioner to pay the 20% demand in six equal monthly installments. The modified order emphasized the importance of timely payment to avoid revocation of the stay granted and specified a completion date for the installments. The court disposed of the stay petitions for the relevant assessment years accordingly.