2020 (2) TMI 660 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - order rejecting the stay of the demand directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of entire demand drawn within 7 days - HELD THAT - Petitioner had explained the position to the AO that the amounts had been received on the maturity of the deposits with the Post Office under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). The petitioner has even procured a letter dated 18.12.2019 which was issued by the postal department, which clearly states that the said deposits were internal transfers and not deposits made in cash. This communication was also marked to the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 68 (1), New Delhi. However, it appears that the AO had already passed the assessment order on 07.12.2019 i.e. before the receipt of communication dated 18.12.2019. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to how, firstly, the AO could have rejected the stay application. Petitioner should not be subjected to harassment for pursuing her appeal. We therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 and remand the matter to the AO for passing fresh assessment order after considering the relevant documents including the communication dated 18.12.2019 issued by the Office Of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi East Division, Delhi.

Issues:

1. Assessment order challenged by the petitioner
2. Rejection of stay application by the Assessing Officer
3. Addition of amounts by the AO despite explanation by the petitioner
4. Communication from postal department clarifying the nature of deposits
5. Setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the AO
6. Setting aside demand notices
7. Appeal before CIT (A) becoming infructuous

Assessment Order Challenged by the Petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), ward 68(1), New Delhi. The petitioner contended that the amounts transferred to their bank accounts from Post Office deposits were shown as cash entries by the AO, despite being bank transfers. The AO made additions to the income based on these entries, amounting to &8377; 18,90,000. The petitioner provided a letter from the postal department dated 18.12.2019, clarifying that the deposits were internal transfers and not made in cash. The High Court found the AO's rejection of the stay application unjust, considering the evidence presented by the petitioner.

Rejection of Stay Application by the Assessing Officer:
The High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the AO's rejection of the petitioner's stay application. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not face harassment for pursuing her appeal. Consequently, the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering the relevant documents, including the communication from the postal department. This decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment process and prevent undue hardship to the petitioner.

Addition of Amounts Despite Explanation by the Petitioner:
Despite the petitioner's explanation that the amounts in question were transfers from Post Office deposits, the AO proceeded to add &8377; 18,90,000 to the income. The High Court noted the petitioner's efforts to clarify the nature of the transactions and the communication from the postal department supporting their claim. The Court found the AO's actions unreasonable and emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence before making additions to the income.

Communication from Postal Department Clarifying the Nature of Deposits:
The communication dated 18.12.2019 from the postal department played a crucial role in the High Court's decision. This communication confirmed that the deposits in question were internal transfers and not cash deposits. The Court considered this communication along with the petitioner's explanations to be significant in establishing the true nature of the transactions. The clarity provided by the postal department's communication helped in overturning the assessment order and setting aside the demand notices.

Setting Aside the Assessment Order and Remanding the Matter to the AO:
In light of the petitioner's evidence and the unjust treatment faced, the High Court decided to set aside the assessment order dated 07.12.2019. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to consider all relevant documents, including the communication from the postal department. This decision aimed to rectify the errors in the initial assessment process and ensure a fair and just outcome for the petitioner.

Setting Aside Demand Notices:
Consequently, the High Court set aside the demand notices issued to the petitioner. The Court's decision to overturn the assessment order and remand the matter for a fresh assessment rendered the demand notices invalid. This step was taken to alleviate the burden on the petitioner and rectify the unjust actions taken based on the flawed assessment order.

Appeal Before CIT (A) Becoming Infructuous:
Due to the High Court's decision to set aside the assessment order, remand the matter for a fresh assessment, and invalidate the demand notices, the appeal before the CIT (A) became infructuous. The actions taken by the High Court rendered the appeal unnecessary, as the initial assessment order was no longer valid. This outcome further emphasized the significance of the High Court's intervention in ensuring a just resolution for the petitioner.

← Previous Next →