2019 (7) TMI 876 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of recovery - writ against direction/condition of CIT (A) to stay of recovery after payment of 10% of the demand by 30. 04. 2019, and another 10% by 31. 05. 2019 will be stand extended for a further period of one month - HELD THAT - The said condition is also not complied with. This Court is not pursued to interfere with the condition imposed in Ext. P6 order particularly keeping in view the CBDT circular issued which stipulates 20% of disputed tax could be imposed as condition for granting the stay. The challenge hence fails. After the order is dictated Sri. Sivadas, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests for expeditious disposal of the appeals pending before the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2016-2017. Respondents opposes issuing a direction for disposal of appeal within time frame as may be stipulated by this Court; for, according to him, the petitioners cannot be allowed to have it both ways, i. e. not paying any tax and at the same time insist for expeditious disposal of appeals. Taken note of the order dated 30. 4. 2019 passed by this Court in these writ petitions and also the issue for consideration before the 1st respondent. This Court as an exceptional case directs the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioners, if complies with the condition of depositing 10% within four weeks from today, the petitioners are entitled to the stay of the assessment orders under challenge in the subject appeals till its disposal thereof.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Ext. P6 order imposing conditions for granting stay of assessment orders; Compliance with conditions imposed by the court; Request for expeditious disposal of appeals pending before the 1st respondent.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed to challenge the Ext. P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, which imposed conditions for granting stay of assessment orders under challenge in the appeals before him. The conditions required the appellant to pay 10% of the demand by specific dates and produce a copy of the challan to the Assessing Officer. The balance demand was stayed for a limited period. The petitioners raised several grounds against the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent in imposing these conditions. However, the court noted that a previous condition imposed by the court for depositing the demand was also not complied with. The court decided not to interfere with the conditions imposed in Ext. P6 order, considering a CBDT circular that allowed 20% of disputed tax to be imposed as a condition for granting stay, leading to the challenge failing.

The court addressed the request for expeditious disposal of appeals pending before the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2016-2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested expeditious disposal, while the standing counsel for the respondents opposed issuing a direction for disposal within a specific timeframe, arguing against allowing the petitioners to avoid paying tax while insisting on quick appeal disposal. The court, as an exceptional case, directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Furthermore, the court stipulated that if the petitioners comply with the condition of depositing 10% within four weeks from the judgment date, they are entitled to the stay of the assessment orders under challenge until the disposal of the appeals. However, failure to comply with the condition would result in the petitioners not being entitled to the benefit of the stay orders, allowing authorities to proceed with recovery in accordance with the law. It was clarified that this order should not be treated as a precedent, emphasizing its exceptional nature in the given circumstances.