2022 (4) TMI 459 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand when the appeal is pending consideration - petitioner is served with Ext.P10 notice demanding payment of amounts imposed under Ext.P1 order of assessment - due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and the financial difficulties, petitioner was called upon to submit its written submissions utilizing the e-proceedings facility on or before 18/9/2020 - petitioner pointed out that despite uploading the written submissions of the petitioner as directed by the respondents, no orders on the appeal have been issued for the last more than 18 months - HELD THAT - Severe restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic were introduced, including lockdown. Situation changed thereafter. This fact was noticed by the Income Tax Department itself, as seen from Ext.P6 notice, wherein they directed the petitioner to submit the written submissions electronically in the e-proceedings facility on or before 18/09/2020. Though there was few days delay, petitioner had uploaded the written submissions by 3/10/2020. In such an instance, Appellate Authority was bound to pass final orders in the appeal. However, it is submitted that till date, final order in the appeal has not been issued. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that, this is a fit case where the circumstances warrant a direction to dispose of the appeal itself in a time bound manner. As already more than 18 months have elapsed since the petitioner was directed by the respondents to upload the hearing note which it had in fact done, and even after that, the respondents failed issue the final order in the appeal, interests of justice demands that recovery proceedings ought not to be pursued in the meantime. The respondent or the Competent Appellate Authority must be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal in a time bound manner.

Summary

Issues: Delay in issuing final order on appeal, enforcement of amount due under assessment order, failure to deposit demanded amount, impact of Covid-19 pandemic on proceedings.

1. Delay in Issuing Final Order on Appeal:
The petitioner appealed an assessment order for the year 2017-18 but faced a delay in the final order issuance despite submitting written submissions as directed. The court noted that more than 18 months had passed without any final decision on the appeal, leading to prejudice for the petitioner. The court emphasized that the Appellate Authority was obligated to pass a final order in a timely manner once the written submissions were uploaded by the petitioner.

2. Enforcement of Amount Due Under Assessment Order:
The respondents demanded payment of amounts imposed under the assessment order while the appeal was pending consideration. The petitioner argued that enforcing the amount due would cause great prejudice, especially with the appeal still unresolved. The court recognized the potential injustice in pursuing recovery proceedings while the appeal remained undecided.

3. Failure to Deposit Demanded Amount:
The Standing Counsel for respondents highlighted that despite a previous judgment directing the petitioner to deposit a portion of the demanded amount, the petitioner failed to comply. This non-compliance led the respondents to initiate proceedings for enforcing the amount due under the assessment order. The court acknowledged this aspect but considered the overall circumstances in the case.

4. Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Proceedings:
The judgment took into account the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, including severe restrictions and lockdowns, which affected the proceedings. The Income Tax Department itself acknowledged the situation by directing the petitioner to submit written submissions electronically. The court noted the delay caused by these circumstances but emphasized the need for a time-bound resolution of the appeal given the prolonged period without a final order.

In conclusion, the court directed the Competent Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment. Coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice were to be kept in abeyance until the appeal was resolved. The writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and fair treatment in the legal process.