2018 (11) TMI 795 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings against petitioners insurance companies - Held that - The issue regarding maintainability of the writ petitions has become academic, as the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited has already filed tax case appeals against the orders passed by the Tribunal and those appeals are in the process of being numbered. So far as the other insurance companies are concerned, it is stated that they are in the process of filing appeals. They would further state that the period of limitation is 120 days and that the period is yet to be over. It is settled legal principle that before the expiry of appeal time, if recovery proceedings are initiated, it would virtually render the appeal as infructuous. Therefore, considering the fact that the said writ petitions were directed to be numbered subject to maintainability and that there has been an interim order in force since 30.8.2018, we are of the considered view that the petitioners should be protected against the recovery proceedings. Hence, we restrain the respective Assessing Officers of the petitioners insurance companies not to initiate any recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, against which, the insurance companies have filed appeals/are in the process of filing appeals under Section 260A of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to IRDA (General Insurance - Reinsurance) Regulations, 2000.
3. Protection against recovery proceedings pending appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Impleadment of relevant parties in tax case appeals.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ Petitions
The High Court addressed the objection raised by the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that appeals should be filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act instead of seeking writ relief. However, the Senior Counsel for the insurance companies contended that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction, affecting the IRDA Regulations, and key stakeholders were not heard. The Court noted that one of the insurance companies had already filed tax case appeals, making the issue of maintainability academic.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The Senior Counsel argued that the Tribunal's findings had undermined the IRDA Regulations and that relevant parties, such as the Government of India, IRDAI, CBDT, and General Insurance Council, were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court acknowledged the concerns raised but emphasized that the focus had shifted due to the filing of tax case appeals by one of the insurance companies and the impending appeals by others.

Issue 3: Protection Against Recovery Proceedings
The Court recognized the importance of protecting the petitioners from recovery proceedings initiated before the appeal time expired, which could render the appeals ineffective. Consequently, the Court restrained the Assessing Officers from initiating recovery proceedings against the insurance companies pending the appeal process under Section 260A of the Act.

Issue 4: Impleadment of Relevant Parties
The Court suo motu impleaded key parties, including the Ministry of Finance, IRDAI, CBDT, and General Insurance Council, in the tax case appeals that were being numbered. It directed the petitioners to ensure their appeals were numbered and scheduled for admission. The Court also extended interim protection granted in the writ petitions until the stay petitions in the tax case appeals were heard, allowing parties to address all factual and legal issues during the appeal process.