2020 (7) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - Direction to petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending disposal of the appeals but on an application preferred by the petitioner before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2nd respondent order was passed reducing the amount to 15% of the disputed demand - HELD THAT - Petitioner is ready to pay an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only as against the demand in Ext.P6 order pending disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority. Taking note of the peculiar situation that existed during the pandemic period when the petitioner s business has come under a lockdown, we deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent, before whom Ext.P2 series of appeals are pending, to consider and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that on the petitioner paying an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- within two months, there shall be a stay of recovery of balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment orders till such time as the 3rd respondent passes orders in the appeals and communicate those orders to the petitioner.

Issues:
1. Challenge against assessment orders under the Income Tax Act.
2. Petitioner's request for stay of recovery proceedings.
3. Reduction of disputed demand by the Assessing Authority.
4. Appeal for complete stay of recovery pending disposal of writ petition and appeals before Appellate Authority.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged assessment orders under the Income Tax Act by filing appeals before the 3rd respondent. Additionally, the petitioner approached the Assessing Authority with petitions under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in the disposal of the petitions by Ext.P4 series of orders. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reduced the disputed demand to 15% through Ext.P6 order. The petitioner sought a complete stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the writ petition and appeals before the Appellate Authority.

2. The High Court considered the submissions made by both parties and noted that the petitioner was willing to pay an amount of ?25,00,000/- against the demand specified in Ext.P6 order while the appeals were pending before the Appellate Authority. Acknowledging the challenges faced by the petitioner's business during the pandemic-induced lockdown, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeals within six months from the date of the judgment. The Court ordered that upon payment of ?25,00,000/- within two months, there would be a stay on the recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment orders until the 3rd respondent communicates the orders on the appeals.

3. The judgment highlights the Court's consideration of the petitioner's financial situation and the impact of the pandemic on their business operations. By directing the 3rd respondent to expedite the appeal process and providing a stay on the recovery of balance amounts, the Court balanced the interests of both the petitioner and the Income Tax Department. The decision to reduce the disputed demand and grant a partial stay reflects the Court's understanding of the challenges faced by taxpayers during extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing fairness and equitable treatment in tax matters.

4. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing the directions for the 3rd respondent to expedite the appeal process and granting a stay on the recovery of balance amounts upon the petitioner's payment of ?25,00,000/- within the specified timeframe. The judgment underscores the importance of timely resolution of tax disputes, especially in light of exceptional circumstances, and demonstrates the Court's commitment to ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved in the legal proceedings related to income tax assessments.

← Previous Next →