2016 (1) TMI 255 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of stay petition - Held that - The petitioner is directed to pay 30% of the demand made by the authority concerned. Since the bank accounts of the petitioner are attached, the authority concerned is permitted to realise 30% of the demand and directed to raise the attachment forthwith made on the bank accounts of the petitioner. The second respondent Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Upon realisation of 30% demand as stated above, no further recovery shall be made till the disposal of the appeal by the second respondent.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of stay petition and consequential bank account attachment.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered company, challenged the rejection of its stay petition and the subsequent attachment of its bank accounts by the first respondent. The petitioner engaged in business transactions with companies in Singapore, incurring significant financial losses. The first respondent disallowed the claimed losses and depreciation in the assessment order for the year 2011-12, leading to a demand for tax payment. The petitioner's appeal for a stay order was not granted, prompting an application before the third respondent, who rejected the stay and directed enforcement of the demand, resulting in the bank account attachment.

The petitioner contended that the third respondent's order lacked reasoning and violated natural justice principles. The petitioner argued that the bank account attachment severely impacted its business operations, causing irreparable harm. The respondents acknowledged the third respondent's order but stated that no recovery proceedings had commenced yet.

The court examined the arguments and evidence presented. It noted the lack of reasoning in the third respondent's order and the adverse effects of the bank account attachment on the petitioner's business. Additionally, a communication from the Joint Commissioner highlighted past opportunities for payment that the petitioner did not utilize. Despite this, no recovery had been initiated by the respondents.

In light of the circumstances, the court issued specific directives: the petitioner was instructed to pay 30% of the demand, allowing the authority to realize this amount from the attached bank accounts and lift the attachment. The appellate authority was directed to expedite the appeal process with a personal hearing for the petitioner. Further recovery was prohibited until the appeal's resolution. The court disposed of both writ petitions without costs, closing related miscellaneous petitions.