2024 (9) TMI 1520 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of recovery of tax demand until the disposal of the appeal by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Since the petitioner is a widow and facing financial problem, she expressed her hardship in paying 20% of the total disputed demand as directed as directed by the third respondent - HELD THAT - Considering the hardship expressed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) instead of 20% of the total disputed demand as directed by the 3rd respondent vide impugned order. Accordingly, the petitioner petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such deposit, the respondents shall stay the recovery of tax demand until the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. This Court, generally at the instance of the learned Standing counsel, adjourns the matters for filing counter affidavits from time to time. In one matter, even after adjourning the matter on seven occasions, still the learned standing counsel sought adjournment on eighth occasion, which prompted this Court to impose the costs. While so, in the present case, it is important to note that Thiru Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit immediately on the first day itself when the matter is taken up for admission. This Court places its appreciation on record towards best efforts taken by Thiru Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, in filing the Counter affidavit without taking any adjournment, when the matter came up for first hearing and facilitated this Court to dispose of the matter without keeping it pending for want of counter. When the learned Senior Standing Counsel is able to file the counter on the very first day of hearing, this Court is unable to understand as to why the other learned standing counsels are unable to file the counter affidavits in time in their respective matters. Generally, the litigant public is under impression that pendency of the cases is at the instance of the Courts. But the Courts will always take strenuous efforts to dispose of the matters where both the parties have made out the pleadings. Majority of Writ Petitions have been pending for want of counter affidavits and lack of co-operation on behalf of the statutory authorities and the learned standing counsel and Government Pleaders who represent them. There cannot be any excuse for not filing the counter affidavits in time.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned tax demand order and stay application denial.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.07.2024, which directed payment of 20% of the disputed tax demand. The petitioner, a widow facing financial crisis, sought a reduction in the percentage due to the sale of ancestral property. The respondents opposed any reduction, suggesting a 15% payment. The court considered the petitioner's hardship and directed payment of Rs. 2,50,000 instead of 20% of the demand. This payment was to be made within four weeks, with a stay on tax recovery until the appeal's disposal.

The court noted the petitioner's financial difficulties, primarily due to the sale of family property, and the discrepancy in the assessment order. The petitioner's appeal against the assessment order was pending. Considering the circumstances, the court found it appropriate to reduce the payment amount. The decision aimed to alleviate the petitioner's financial burden while ensuring compliance with tax obligations.

The court commended the Senior Standing Counsel for promptly filing the counter affidavit without seeking adjournment. This efficiency facilitated the timely disposal of the case, contrasting with instances of repeated adjournments causing delays. The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of counter affidavits by all standing counsels to expedite case resolution and reduce judicial backlog.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000 instead of the initial 20% of the disputed tax demand. The decision balanced the petitioner's financial constraints with the need for tax compliance. The judgment underscored the significance of prompt filing of counter affidavits to expedite case proceedings and enhance judicial efficiency.