2014 (8) TMI 208 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee in default u/s 220(6) recovery of demand - Held that - An assessee has complied with directions issued either by the AO and/or the Jurisdictional Commissioner imposed while granting the stay and/or passing the order u/s 220(6) of the Act while not treating the assessee in default, there cannot be any further steps and/or coercive action to recover the amount of demand on the ground of pressure from the higher authorities to recover maximum amount of tax on or before 31.03.2014 - Under the guise of recovery of maximum amount of tax on or before 31.03.2014, there may not be any coercive action to recover the amount of tax which otherwise is not permissible under the law - The appeal before the CIT(A) is not being proceeded further as the AO has not responded to and/or has not send the comments to the reply submitted by the assessee to the comments submitted by the AO thus, the order of the AO is set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the communication/order dated 27.03.2014 by the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Compliance with the directions issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) and the AO.
3. Delay in the appeal process before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
4. Review of the stay order by the Commissioner.
5. Coercive recovery measures and pressure from higher authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Communication/Order Dated 27.03.2014 by the AO:
The petitioner challenged the communication/order dated 27.03.2014 issued by the AO, which called for the payment of the balance demand by 20.03.2014, failing which coercive recovery measures would be taken. The court found this communication to be "absolutely illegal and most arbitrary" as the petitioner had complied with the payment directions issued by the Commissioner. The court emphasized that once the petitioner complied with the directions, there should not have been any further coercive action based on pressure from higher authorities to recover maximum tax before 31.03.2014. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communication/order dated 27.03.2014.

2. Compliance with the Directions Issued by the Commissioner and the AO:
The petitioner had complied with the initial directions to pay Rs. 2.25 crores in installments and later an additional Rs. 2 crores as directed by the Commissioner. Despite this compliance, the Commissioner reviewed the stay order and instructed the AO to initiate recovery measures, citing non-attendance of the petitioner's representative for a review meeting. The court disapproved of this procedure, noting that compliance with the directions should have prevented any further coercive actions.

3. Delay in the Appeal Process Before the CIT(A):
The petitioner argued that the delay in the appeal process was due to the AO's failure to submit comments to the CIT(A), which delayed the hearing. The court acknowledged this issue and directed the AO to submit the necessary comments within 15 days, allowing the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal within six weeks, preferably before 15.09.2014.

4. Review of the Stay Order by the Commissioner:
The court criticized the Commissioner's decision to review the stay order without issuing a formal notice to the petitioner. The review was based on telephonic instructions, which the court found inappropriate. The court emphasized that any review of such orders should follow due process, including issuing a notice to show cause.

5. Coercive Recovery Measures and Pressure from Higher Authorities:
The court did not approve of the Commissioner's justification for the coercive recovery measures, which was based on pressure from higher authorities to maximize tax recovery before the financial year-end. The court stated that such pressure should not override legal procedures and the rights of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned communication/order dated 27.03.2014, and directed the AO to act in accordance with the directions given. The court also mandated the timely disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) and directed all parties to cooperate in the process. The ruling emphasized adherence to legal procedures and the rights of the assessee, disapproving of arbitrary and coercive actions based on external pressures.

← Previous Next →