2020 (4) TMI 168 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - recovery proceedings - petitioner is willing to deposit 15% of the demanded amount in case the draft prepared by the Bank in favour of the income tax authorities are ordered to be not encashed and account is regularised - HELD THAT - The appeals were preferred on 16th March, 2020. Though the period of limitation had not expired, but going through the circumstances resulting into preparation of the demand drafts as noticed above, the working of the Cooperative Society has come to a halt. Instead of directing the Tribunal to decide the application firstly, I deem it appropriate to issue directions to the Tribunal to decide the appeals within some time line and in order to enable the petitioner it seems appropriate to direct the income tax officer not to press for the encashment of the demand drafts, provided the petitioner deposits at least 30% of the demanded tax within a period of one week from today. On receipt of the aforementioned tax, the demand drafts would be cancelled. The petitioner shall be permitted to transact the Bank account maintained with the Bank. The Tribunal in such circumstances shall endeavour to decide the appeals within a period of six months. Till such time this arrangement will continue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of income tax for multiple years by the first respondent.
2. Appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders.
3. Coercive steps for recovery taken by the recovery officer.
4. Petitioner's inability to transact business due to garnishee notice.
5. Request for direction to the Tribunal to decide appeals and depositing a substantial amount of tax.
6. Court's decision on the matter.

Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the assessment of income tax for various years by the first respondent. The petitioner, a primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, challenged the assessment orders for several assessment years. The income assessed and tax demanded varied for each year, leading to a complex situation.

2. The second issue pertains to the appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Despite the appeals being dismissed, the petitioner promptly prepared and filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within the statutory time frame of 60 days.

3. The third issue involves coercive steps for recovery initiated by the recovery officer, including issuing a notice of garnishee to the Bank to obtain specific amounts. This action hindered the petitioner's ability to file appeals and disrupted the daily operations of the Co-operative Society.

4. The fourth issue highlights the petitioner's predicament due to the garnishee notice, which prevented the Society from conducting business activities. The petitioner's willingness to deposit a portion of the demanded amount to regularize the account was also mentioned.

5. The fifth issue addresses the petitioner's request for a direction to the Tribunal to decide the appeals promptly and the willingness to deposit a substantial amount of tax to secure the revenue's interest. The Court considered the circumstances and directed the petitioner to deposit a specific percentage of the demanded tax within a week to avoid encashment of demand drafts.

6. The final issue encapsulates the Court's decision on the matter. The Court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the circumstances, directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals within a specified timeline. It also allowed the petitioner to transact the Bank account upon depositing a portion of the demanded tax, ensuring the continuation of the Society's operations until the appeals are resolved.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to income tax assessment, appeals, coercive recovery steps, petitioner's business operations, directions to the Tribunal, and the Court's decision to facilitate the resolution of the matter in a fair and practical manner.