2013 (3) TMI 289 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - as per dept. stay ordered by the appellate authority remained in force only till 31st August 2012 thus direction in Ext.P9 order that the recovery proceedings are now initiated - Held that - Since the petitioner has already remitted 50% and since the appeal is still pending consideration of the 2nd respondent, no reason why the petitioner should be compelled to pay any more amount, pending disposal of the appeal. Therefore, this writ petition disposed directing that the proceedings for recovery of the balance amount due from the petitioner under Ext.P1 assessment order, will be kept in abeyance, pending disposal of Ext.P4 appeal.

Summary

Issues: Assessment under Income Tax Act for AY 2007-08, challenge to assessment, stay petition, recovery proceedings, interpretation of stay order.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the assessment under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessment was completed against the petitioner, and they filed an appeal along with a stay petition. While the appeal and stay petition were pending, recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by a judgment directing the appellate authority to pass orders on the stay petition and keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance. The appellate authority granted a stay order on the condition that the petitioner remit 50% of the amount due in five equated monthly installments. The petitioner complied with this order and remitted the amount. However, they were later called upon to remit the balance 50%, which the petitioner contested, arguing that since they had already remitted 50% and the appeal was still pending, they should not be compelled to pay the balance amount.

The key contention revolved around the interpretation of the stay order issued by the appellate authority. Paragraph 9 of the stay order stated that the appellant would not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the balance 50% of the demand until a specified date or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The court noted that the stay ordered by the appellate authority was to remain in force only until a specific date mentioned in the order. Despite the initiation of recovery proceedings based on this direction, the court held that since the petitioner had already remitted 50% and the appeal was still pending consideration, there was no justification to compel the petitioner to pay the remaining amount. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the proceedings for recovery of the balance amount due from the petitioner would be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal.