2020 (10) TMI 193 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings initiated by way attachment of bank account - HELD THAT - The petitioner has rightly challenged the impugned orders of assessment by way of statutory appal before the CIT (Appeals) as early as in March, 2020. Inter alia, an application for stay as well as an application for rectification of mistakes u/s 154 are also stated to have been filed. All three are yet pending. Though several issues are raised in the grounds, the primary ground agitated is the violation of principles of natural justice. As the petitioner has availed statutory appellate remedy, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of assessment and all grounds and issues are left open to be agitated in appeal. Assessing Officer has, pending stay application before the Assessing Officer, not only attached the bank account but has also recovered some portion of the disputed demand. While the attachment of the bank account will continue, it is made clear that no further amount will be appropriated therefrom.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order for AY 2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and coercive recovery proceedings through bank account attachment.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground raised was the violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in March 2020, along with an application for stay and rectification of mistakes under Section 154 of the Act, which were pending. The court noted that since the petitioner had availed the statutory appellate remedy, it was not inclined to interfere in the order of assessment. All grounds and issues were left open to be raised in the appeal.

2. Coercive Recovery Proceedings:
The respondent Assessing Officer, despite the pending stay application before them, had attached the petitioner's bank account and recovered a portion of the disputed demand. In light of this, the court issued directions to balance the interests of both parties. The court ordered that while the attachment of the bank account would continue, no further amount would be appropriated from it. This decision aimed to address the concerns of both parties and ensure a fair resolution of the matter.

3. Final Disposition:
The court disposed of the writ petitions with the above directions. It further stated that connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter. By providing clarity on the continuation of the bank account attachment and restricting further appropriation, the court sought to maintain a fair balance between the interests of the petitioner and the respondent Assessing Officer in the ongoing legal proceedings.