2020 (4) TMI 456 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner seeking stay, we have given our attention to the assessment order dated 21st December, 2019? - HELD THAT - Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable. We feel that instead of taking a mechanical approach by directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demand or providing installments, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial hardship, if any, of the petitioner. Stay Granted - Let the appeal be decided by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of the order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of order rejecting stay of demand.
2. Direction to keep recovery of demand in abeyance till disposal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged the rejection of his application for stay of demand by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioner had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13, declaring a total income. The assessment was reopened, and the Assessing Officer added an amount to the petitioner's total income, leading to a demand notice. The petitioner appealed the assessment, seeking a stay of demand. Respondent No.1 rejected the stay application, directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand. Subsequently, respondent No.2 rejected the prayer for complete stay but allowed payment in installments. The High Court observed that the assessment was primarily based on coded entries in a diary recovered during a search, and a statement by a third party. The Court found the additions made by the Assessing Officer questionable and emphasized the need to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial hardship of the petitioner. The Court directed to keep the demand in abeyance until the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is disposed of.

2. The Court noted that the assessment order was based on questionable grounds and highlighted the lack of cross-examination of the third party whose statement was crucial in the assessment. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the need to ensure justice by keeping the demand in abeyance until the appeal is decided. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal within four months and ordered the notice of demand to be kept in abeyance until the appeal's disposal. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the stay application and should not be considered final findings on the case's merit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court highlights the legal issues, the facts of the case, the reasoning behind the Court's decision, and the directives issued regarding the stay of demand and appeal process.