1993 (2) TMI 145 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of demand raised by the Revenue.
2. Tribunal's power to pass orders on a stay petition without a rejection order from the Commissioner of Income-tax.
3. Urgency in matters of stay and tax authorities' response.

Analysis:
The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-E dealt with the issue of seeking a stay of the demand raised by the Revenue. The learned Departmental Representative objected to the petition, arguing that the assessee had not exhausted remedies available before the tax authorities, specifically pointing out the absence of written orders from the Commissioner regarding the assessee's application. The counsel for the assessee countered by highlighting the Commissioner's inaction on the application and the tax authorities' insistence on payment despite the pending stay application. Additionally, the counsel argued that the Tribunal could exercise its power to grant a stay without a rejection order from the Commissioner, citing a relevant decision from the Calcutta High Court.

Regarding the merits of the case, the counsel contended that the assessee had a strong case before the Tribunal, indicating the likelihood of the demand being nullified. The Departmental Representative, in response, emphasized the recent filing of the application with the Commissioner as a reason for the Tribunal to withhold passing any orders. The Tribunal acknowledged that while there are no legal restrictions on passing orders on a stay petition at any stage, there are established procedures requiring the assessee to exhaust available remedies before seeking a stay. However, the Tribunal noted exceptions where urgency and unresponsiveness from tax authorities warranted immediate action.

In this specific case, the Tribunal observed coercive measures taken by the Tax Recovery Officer, including issuing "SUMMONS" and applying pressure on the assessee to pay the tax dues promptly. Stressing the importance of urgency in stay matters, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to decide on the assessee's application and stayed the demand subject to the Commissioner's order. The stay order was set to expire seven days after the Commissioner's decision was served on the assessee. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the application in accordance with the above considerations.