2022 (3) TMI 440 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Attachment made on bank account - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner suffered with order of assessment as well as the order of first Appellate Authority atleast in respect of three Assessment Years. For AY 2017-18 is concerned, the appeal is pending before the CIT (Appeals). Except AY 2012-13, where they unsuccessfully filed the stay petition, for all other Assessment Years, even that attempt has not been made by the petitioner assessee. Now he has come forward before this Court making a hue and cry against the attachment made in respect of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner with further rider that, the petitioner is ready and willing to make some payment, that is some percentage of demand which may be indicated or stipulated by this Court as a condition precedent for the consideration of grant of stay of the demand, for the time being, enabling the petitioner assessee to approach the appropriate forum namely, ITAT, CIT (Appeals) and Assessing Authority, as the case may be seeking for a stay of the demand in respect of the concerned Assessment Year. In normal course, if an appeal is filed, which is pending, it is open to the assessee to make an application for stay, even before the Assessing Authority, as there is no condition precedent as a prior deposit for entertaining the appeal before the Appellate Authority and in such case, the Assessing Authority can use his discretion, of course by imposing certain conditions, can treat the assessee is not liable to to pay the tax for the present, that means a stay can be granted. The said stay cannot be granted by way of blanket stay, as the provision namely, Section 220 (6) of the Act makes it mandatory that a condition shall be imposed, of course from the discretion of the Assessing Authority. The petitioner has missed to file any such application in respect of three Assessment Years, i.e., 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2016-17. In all these years, the Appeal is now pending before the ITAT. Out of these three Assessment Years, for AY 2012-13, as stated above, the petitioner has made an unsuccessful attempt to seek for stay. Even against the said order passed by ITAT no further appeal was filed by way of Tax Case Appeal before this Court. When that being the situation, the assessee now come forward to make payment, which can be taken as a condition for making some interim arrangement, till the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum, to seek for stay of the demand by filing necessary application. This Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders (i) That the petitioner shall make payment of 20% of the demand in respect of AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and 30% of the demand for AY 2012-13, within a period of four weeks from today. (ii) On such condition, there shall be an order of stay for a period of two months, within which, the petitioner shall approach either the ITAT or the CIT (Appeals) or the Assessing Authority as the case may be in respect of AY 2015-16 to 2017-18. (iii) Insofar as AY 2012-13 is concerned, such a course of action can be adopted by the petitioner assessee against the order passed by the ITAT in his earlier application for stay by filing appropriate appeal before the forum concerned, in accordance with law. (iv) In view of the stay granted, after making the payment, as indicated above, the attachment made in respect of the Bank Accounts can be lifted by the respondent Revenue. (v) It is made clear that, if the petitioner assessee has not complied with the payment schedule as indicated above, the stay granted now through this order shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court for any further orders.

Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus sought to lift bank account attachments by respondent.
2. Assessment orders passed against petitioner for various years.
3. Appeals filed by petitioner before different authorities.
4. Bank accounts of petitioner attached, affecting business activities.
5. Petitioner's plea for stay application rejected by ITAT.
6. No stay petitions filed for certain assessment years.
7. Petitioner's willingness to make payment for demands.
8. Respondent's argument against lifting bank account attachments.
9. Court's consideration of submissions and materials presented.
10. Disposition of the writ petition with specific orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to lift bank account attachments made by the respondent based on notices dated 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022.
2. Assessment orders were passed against the petitioner for different assessment years, with appeals filed before the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT, pending for certain years.
3. Bank accounts of the petitioner were attached, leading to severe disruptions in business operations.
4. The petitioner's stay application for the demand of Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected by the ITAT, while no such application was filed for other assessment years.
5. The petitioner expressed readiness to make partial payments towards the demands to seek relief from the attachment of bank accounts.
6. The respondent argued that without substantial payments, lifting the bank account attachments cannot be considered.
7. The court noted the submissions from both parties and examined the presented materials.
8. Considering the circumstances, the court ordered the petitioner to make specific payments for different assessment years within a designated period.
9. The court granted a stay for a limited time for the petitioner to approach relevant authorities for further relief.
10. Non-compliance with the court's orders would result in automatic vacation of the stay, allowing the Revenue to proceed with further actions.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised, arguments presented, and the court's decision in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court.

← Previous Next →