2014 (4) TMI 119 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of recovery made during the pendency of appeal - Bank account attached - The contention of the assessee appears to be misconceived - When the second appeal is pending before the Tribunal the assessee ought to have made a prayer for stay or refund of the money before the Tribunal itself any mandatory order by way of interim relief cannot be ordered - the order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) against the assessee and the department have effected the recovery there is no reason to interfere in the order the Tribunal is directed for early disposal of the matter as it involves substantial amount of tax Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relief sought by the petitioner including directions for disposal of appeal and refund of recovered amounts.
2. Legality of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Misconception in petitioner's contention regarding the recovery process.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue mandatory orders as interim relief.
5. Direction for early disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Lack of regular sittings at Jabalpur by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The petitioner sought various reliefs, including sending for case records, directing the respondent to arrange early disposal of the appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, quashing the order of attachment of the bank account, and restraining coercive recovery during appeal pendency. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus for the refund of recovered amounts. The case involved an appeal against an assessment order for the year 2010-2011, where an interim stay was granted on a deposit. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed, leading to recovery proceedings and the attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner argued that the recovery during the appeal's pendency was illegal and sought a refund of the amount.

The High Court noted that the petitioner's contention regarding the recovery process was misconceived. It highlighted that when a second appeal is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner should have requested a stay or refund directly from the Tribunal. The Court stated that it could not issue mandatory orders as interim relief at that stage, especially since the recovery had been effected based on orders passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the C.I.T.A. The Court directed the petitioner to seek interim relief from the Tribunal itself and did not find a reason to interfere with the recovery order at that point.

Given the substantial tax amount involved, the High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the appeal for the assessment year 2010-2011. Noting the lack of regular sittings at Jabalpur by the Tribunal, the Court instructed the petitioner to file an application for an expedited hearing within two weeks. If such an application was filed, the Tribunal was directed to schedule a hearing within four weeks from the application's submission and to make efforts to decide the matter promptly. This direction aimed to ensure timely resolution of the appeal due to the absence of regular sittings at Jabalpur by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by the parties, and the High Court's directives regarding the appeal process and recovery proceedings.