2014 (3) TMI 578 - HC - Income Tax

Coercive recovery by the Revenue Held that - The court directed that the recovery of the amount covered under the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till instructions are received from the respondents - there is no necessity of keeping the writ petition pending, especially, in the light of the fact that there was no representation for the petitioner when the matter was called up - the writ petition is closed, without examining the merits - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of coercive steps for tax arrears recovery, assessment completion for 2008-2009, notice issuance under Income Tax Act, adjournment request, failure to appear, assessment completion, demand notice, penalty imposition, appeal preparation, coercive steps initiation, interim order for recovery abeyance, writ petition for appeal breathing time.

The judgment deals with a case where the petitioner, engaged in the business of mobile phones and accessories, faced coercive steps for tax arrears recovery for the assessment year 2008-2009. The petitioner alleged that the assessment was completed by the first respondent and a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act for scrutiny. Due to the accountant's absence, an adjournment was requested and granted. However, the petitioner failed to appear as he was in China studying new developments in mobile phone trading. Consequently, the assessment was completed by the second respondent, leading to the issuance of a demand notice and a show-cause notice for penalty imposition under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner claimed that due to delayed receipt of communications, he could not respond in time. Subsequently, when attempting to prepare an appeal, the petitioner was informed that the appeal time had lapsed, and coercive steps for revenue recovery were imminent, prompting the petitioner to approach the Court.

The Court, after an interim order to halt recovery pending further instructions, observed that the writ petition was primarily aimed at gaining time to file an appeal against the assessment order. Since there was no representation for the petitioner during the hearing, the Court concluded that there was no need to keep the writ petition pending, especially considering the circumstances. Therefore, the Court decided to close the writ petition without delving into the merits of the case, effectively dismissing the petitioner's plea for relief.