2020 (9) TMI 417 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Recovery proceedings - mechanically directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for stay of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal - HELD THAT - Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as it does not consider the merits of the petitioner s case in the appeal, and further has to be seen as passed under dictation, based on the instructions issued by the CBDT. As a quasi-judicial authority, the 2nd respondent cannot see his discretion as fettered by the directions issued by the CBDT, especially when he is performing an adjudicatory function. I therefore quash Ext.P7 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed in the appeal and the order communicated to the petitioner. In view of the direction issued above, Ext.P7 stay order passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment order under the Income Tax Act, legality of stay order passed without considering merits of the case, reliance on CBDT Circulars, quashing of stay order, direction for reconsideration of appeal, time limit for passing orders, recovery steps, legality of order passed under dictation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Income Tax Act and filed an appeal along with a stay petition. The High Court observed that the stay order passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for stay was not legally sustainable. The court noted that the order did not consider the merits of the petitioner's case and appeared to be based on instructions from the CBDT, which was deemed inappropriate for a quasi-judicial authority. Consequently, the court quashed the stay order and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider and pass orders on the appeal within six months after hearing the petitioner. The court also ordered that recovery steps for the confirmed amounts against the petitioner be halted until the appeal decision is communicated. The court emphasized that the stay order was passed without considering the case's merits and solely on CBDT directives, which was deemed improper.

The judgment highlighted the importance of a quasi-judicial authority exercising discretion independently without being unduly influenced by external directives. The court emphasized that the 2nd respondent should base decisions on the merits of the case rather than blindly following instructions from external bodies like the CBDT. By setting a time limit for reconsidering the appeal and halting recovery steps, the court ensured a fair and just process for the petitioner. The judgment serves as a reminder for authorities to uphold the principles of natural justice and adjudicate matters impartially, considering all relevant aspects of the case before making decisions. The court's intervention in quashing the stay order and providing clear directions for reconsideration underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.