2015 (4) TMI 876 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition challenged - Held that - It is not in dispute that at the time of rejecting the stay petition by the first respondent, the petitioner has made a statement before the authority that he is willing to pay the entire arrears amount in instalments. That being so, he cannot now contend that the order passed in the stay petition is wrong. Moreover, though the petitioner has disputed the liability, the demand of ₹ 4,25,40,690/- is payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Admittedly, six months have been lapsed. Further, the accounting year would also come to an end on 31.3.2015. In such circumstances, not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to pay the aforesaid sum of ₹ 4,25,40,690/- in three equal instalments on or before 31.3.2015. The first of such instalment shall be paid on or before 20.3.2015. The second instalment shall be paid on or before 27.3.2015 and the third and final instalment shall be paid on or before 31.3.2015. With regard to the disputed amount of tax including TDS is concerned, the same is payable by the petitioner subject to the outcome of appeal/rectification. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order and demand raised by the respondent.
2. Rejection of stay petition and request for instalment payment.
3. Disputed liability and payment schedule directed by the court.
4. Pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and disposal timeline.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in Civil Engineering Construction, challenged the assessment order dated 08.3.2014 by the respondent, demanding payment of Rs. 4,25,40,690. During the appeal process, the petitioner requested a stay on tax collection, offering to pay the arrears in instalments. The Joint Commissioner rejected the stay, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The court noted the petitioner's willingness to pay in instalments and upheld the liability, directing payment of the full amount by specified dates.

Regarding the disputed amount and TDS, the court ruled that the petitioner must pay subject to appeal/rectification outcomes. The court set a payment schedule, requiring three equal instalments before 31.3.2015. The first instalment was due by 20.3.2015, followed by subsequent payments. The court instructed the authority to expedite the appeal process, mandating disposal within three months from the court order receipt.

The judgment emphasized that failure to adhere to the payment schedule would result in the restoration of the initial order, allowing the authority to proceed legally. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed, concluding the legal proceedings related to the case.