2020 (3) TMI 440 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - respondent by a communication dated 20.01.2020 informed that the stay petition can be considered only on payment of minimum of 20% of total demand when the demand is contested before the CIT (Appeals) - HELD THAT - Though there is no embargo under the notice communicated under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax, 1961 on the appellant from operating its accounts, it appears that the order giving the benefit to the appellant has become inoperable. To insist on the petitioner, the first pay 20% of the disputed tax in five installments ending with 30.07.2020 and thereafter, the lift the order of attachment would result in denial of the benefit originally conferred on 21.01.2020 on the appellant. We are inclined to modify the order by lifting the order of attachment subject to the appellant paying amount in installments. The concession being given by this order will stand automatically withdrawn sine die if the appellants fails to pay the amounts as per the date fixed by the learned Single Judges. It is also relevant to mention that the appellant is dealing with public money and is accountable. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order - (i) the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Trichy dated 07.02.2020 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax 1961 is stayed till 01.04.2020 on condition that the appellant pays the first installment in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge on or before 30.03.2020. (ii) On such deposit, the stay shall stand renewed and so on till the subsequent installment strictly in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge till 30.07.2020. (iii)upon payment of the fifth installment on 30.07.2020, there shall be absolute stay. (iv) the respondents are directed to give necessary instructions to the concerned banks to enable the appellant to operate its bank accounts in its usual course of business. (v) In case, the appellant fails to pay the amount as per the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents are also at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to recover the tax due from the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of assessment order and payment of 20% demand in installments.
2. Impact of attachment order under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the appellant's business.
3. Request to stay attachment order to enable compliance with court's direction.
4. Allegations of appellant attempting to empty frozen accounts.
5. Consideration of mutual trust and cooperation to protect public interest.
6. Modification of order to lift attachment subject to payment in installments.
7. Accountability of appellant dealing with public money.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged an order requiring payment of 20% of the total demand to stay assessment orders. The appellant agreed to pay in installments, and the court granted time for payment. However, an attachment order under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act froze accounts, hindering payment.

2. The attachment order paralyzed the appellant's business, affecting salary payments and operations of a Chit company with significant turnover. The appellant feared collapse due to inability to access funds, which could harm its market reputation.

3. The appellant sought a stay on the attachment order to comply with the court's payment direction. The court modified the order to lift the attachment upon installment payments, emphasizing the need for trust and cooperation to safeguard public interest.

4. The respondents alleged the appellant attempted to empty frozen accounts, indicating malintent. The court considered the conduct of the appellant in modifying the order to balance the interests of both parties.

5. Emphasizing mutual cooperation, the court modified the order to lift the attachment conditionally on installment payments. The court stressed the appellant's accountability in dealing with public funds, ensuring compliance with the payment schedule.

6. The court stayed the attachment order till the first installment payment, with subsequent installments leading to a complete stay. Instructions were given to banks to enable normal business operations, with a warning of legal action if payment terms were not met.

7. In conclusion, the court disposed of the appeal, highlighting the importance of meeting payment obligations and maintaining trust between parties. The judgment aimed to protect public interest while ensuring accountability in financial dealings.