2013 (4) TMI 484 - HC - Income Tax

Section 250 - Stay of recovery - Coercive measures - Attached the bank account - Held that - As per Section 250 (6A) specifically provides that during the pendency of this petition, the Assessee should not be treated as defaulter and apparently the action has been taken by the respondent No.1 for recovery of the dues against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal - So far as Section 250(6A) of the Act is concerned, it provides that the appellate authority shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal was filed. The aforesaid provision also put an obligation on respondent No.2 to decide the appeal expeditiously. Petitioner shall move an application before the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal - The respondent No.2 on filing of such an application shall consider and decide the application for stay expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of such an application and shall further make an endeavour to decide the appeal itself as far as possible within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of such an application - Respondent No.1 shall not take any coercive action and shall await the decision of respondent No.2 on the stay application and during this period, the respondent No.1 shall release the Bank account of the petitioner and the amount transmitted to the Revenue, shall be subject to decision of appeal by the respondent No.2 - It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent No.2 shall be free to decide the appeal and the stay application in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timely decision on appeal by respondent No.1
2. Stay on recovery proceedings
3. Timely decision on application by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for respondent No.1 to decide the appeal within two months. The appeal was filed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also requested a stay on recovery proceedings until the appeal decision. The petitioner highlighted delays in adjudicating applications for stay while coercive actions were initiated by respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner argued that under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, being in appeal should not deem them a defaulter. The petitioner's bank account was attached, and funds were transferred during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner referenced Section 220(6) and Section 250(6A) of the Act to support their argument against being treated as a defaulter during the appeal process.

3. The court noted that during the appeal's pendency, the petitioner should not be considered a defaulter as per the provisions of Section 220(6) and Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act. The court directed the petitioner to request the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the appeal decision and consider the stay applications promptly. Respondent No.1 was instructed not to take coercive actions and to release the petitioner's bank account, pending the appeal decision by respondent No.2.

In conclusion, the court granted the petitioner's requests, emphasizing the need for a timely decision on the appeal and stay applications. The court directed the authorities to expedite the appeal decision and stay application process, ensuring the petitioner is not treated as a defaulter during the appeal proceedings. The judgment focused on procedural fairness and adherence to the statutory timelines outlined in the Income Tax Act, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.