2020 (1) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Stay application - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the documents, it is clear that a sum of ₹ 14 lakh had already been paid by the petitioner in light of the order passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Circle 51(1), Kolkata. A further payment of ₹ 14 lakh is still pending. Petitioner has submitted that he is unable to make any further payment since his bank account is lying seized and attached. In light of the above submission, it would be just and fair to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), XV being the respondent no.2 to dispose of the stay application and appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of three weeks from date. In the meantime, no coercive steps should be taken by the Income Tax Authority against the petitioner till the passing of the reasoned order by the Appellate Authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inaction by respondent authorities in considering stay application and appeal.
2. Payment made by petitioner under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Bank account of petitioner seized and attached.
4. Direction to dispose of stay application and appeal within three weeks.
5. Prohibition on coercive steps by Income Tax Authority.
6. Disposal of the writ petition without calling for affidavit-in-opposition.
7. No order as to costs.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering their stay application and appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court noted that a sum of ?14 lakh had already been paid by the petitioner under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a further payment of ?14 lakh pending. The petitioner expressed inability to make further payment due to their bank account being seized and attached.

2. Considering the above circumstances, the court deemed it just and fair to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the stay application and appeal within three weeks. It was further ordered that no coercive steps should be taken by the Income Tax Authority against the petitioner until a reasoned order is passed by the Appellate Authority.

3. The judgment also highlighted that the writ petition was disposed of without calling for an affidavit-in-opposition from the respondents. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition were deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. Additionally, no costs were imposed in the matter.

4. Finally, the court directed that an urgent photostat certified copy of the order be provided to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. This comprehensive judgment addressed the issues of inaction by authorities, payment under the Income Tax Act, prohibition on coercive steps, and the procedural aspects of the case, ensuring a fair and just resolution for the petitioner.