2020 (7) TMI 397 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - recovery proceedings - first respondent directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount treating him as Assessee in default - assessment was reopened and the reassessment order was passed wherein addition was made under short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains and as aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent - HELD THAT - This Court is inclined to modify the order passed by the first respondent vide communication dated 06.02.2020 and give appropriate direction to the second respondent for disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by the first respondent vide communication dated 06.02.2020 is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it is open to the first respondent to recover the amount as mentioned in the said communication. In the meanwhile, the second respondent shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order of reassessment dated 27.12.2019 for the year 2012-13 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Addition made under short-term and long-term capital gains in the reassessment order.
3. Direction to pay 20% of disputed tax amount.
4. Appeal filed against the reassessment order.
5. Petition to quash the communication and stay the recovery of tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13
The petitioner, an Income Tax Assessee, had filed returns for the assessment year 2012-13. The first respondent passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) making an addition to the total income. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a notice under Section 148 for reassessment, stating that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner filed returns, and the reassessment order was passed, adding amounts under short-term and long-term capital gains.

Issue 2: Addition made under short-term and long-term capital gains in the reassessment order
In the reassessment order, the first respondent made additions under short-term and long-term capital gains, determining the tax amount. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the second respondent challenging the additions made in the reassessment.

Issue 3: Direction to pay 20% of disputed tax amount
The first respondent directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount, treating the petitioner as "Assessee in default." This led the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking to quash the communication and stay the recovery of tax until the appeal before the second respondent was disposed of.

Issue 4: Appeal filed against the reassessment order
The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent against the reassessment order passed by the first respondent. The petitioner sought a direction for the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time frame.

Issue 5: Petition to quash the communication and stay the recovery of tax
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the communication directing the payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. The High Court modified the order passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a specified sum and instructing the second respondent to consider the appeal against the reassessment order and pass appropriate orders after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, providing directions for payment and the disposal of the appeal, while also closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without any costs.

← Previous Next →