2020 (9) TMI 203 - HC - Income Tax

Violation of the principles of natural justice - condonation of delay - delay of three days - HELD THAT - The reasons for delay are stated to be a miscalculation of the period of limitation. Bearing in mind the period of delay and the reasons expressed, thus the delay is liable to be condoned. W.P is closed and the petitioner is permitted to pursue the statutory appeal filed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - attachment of bank accounts - HELD THAT - The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose the application for stay dated 18.03.2020 within a period of six (6) weeks from date of uploading of this order after hearing the petitioner, either over video conference or by way of physical hearing as may be mutually convenient to the parties. Let the attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner continue. However no further recovery proceedings will be initiated till the disposal of the stay application.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 based on violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Delay in filing statutory appeal and condonation of delay.
3. Direction sought to prevent recovery action pending disposal of stay application.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order of assessment dated 30.12.2019 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, primarily alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority, albeit with a delay of three days. The court, considering the reasons for delay as a miscalculation of the limitation period, held that the delay is liable to be condoned. The appeal was directed to be taken on file by the Registry of the first appellate authority for consideration on the merits of the additions made.

2. Another writ petition sought a direction to the first respondent to refrain from initiating recovery action against the petitioner following the disputed demand raised in the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 until the disposal of the stay application pending before him. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that despite the stay application being pending, the bank accounts of the petitioner in multiple banks had been attached, and certain amounts had been appropriated. Consequently, the first respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the stay application within six weeks from the date of the court order, after hearing the petitioner either through video conference or physical hearing as mutually convenient. The court allowed the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts to continue but prohibited further recovery proceedings until the stay application was resolved.

3. The court disposed of the second writ petition in the terms mentioned above, directing the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions without imposing any costs. The judgment ensured that the statutory appeal was considered on its merits despite a delay, and it provided relief to the petitioner by halting further recovery actions pending the disposal of the stay application.