2022 (3) TMI 783 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - condition precedent for the grant of stay of the demand - HELD THAT - 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. 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. 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.
2. Assessment orders passed against the petitioner for multiple years.
3. Bank accounts of the petitioner attached, affecting business activities.
4. Stay application filed for one assessment year, pending appeals for others.
5. Request for lifting attachments and making partial payments.
6. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the attachments.
7. Court's analysis of the situation and decision on the matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to lift attachments on bank accounts by the respondent. The attachments were made through notices under section 226(3) for various assessment years. The petitioner claimed that the attachments severely impacted their business activities.

2. Assessment orders had been passed against the petitioner for multiple years, including 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. Appeals were filed for some years, but the orders were confirmed. The petitioner had also filed a stay application for the demand related to the 2012-13 assessment year, which was rejected by the ITAT.

3. The petitioner's bank accounts were attached, causing significant disruption to their business operations. The petitioner argued that they were willing to make partial payments towards the demands to seek relief from the attachments.

4. The petitioner had filed a stay application for the 2012-13 assessment year, which was dismissed by the ITAT. For the other assessment years, no such applications were filed either before the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. The petitioner requested the court to consider their willingness to make payments as a condition for lifting the attachments.

5. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the attachments and the petitioner's proposal to make partial payments. The respondent contended that substantial payments were necessary before considering lifting the bank account attachments.

6. The court considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the case details. It noted that the petitioner had not filed stay applications for most assessment years and had only made an unsuccessful attempt for one year. The court then issued specific orders regarding partial payments and stay arrangements for different assessment years.

7. The court directed the petitioner to make partial payments within a specified period for each assessment year. It granted a stay for a limited period, allowing the petitioner to approach the relevant forums for further relief. The court also outlined the consequences of non-compliance with the payment schedule and emphasized the importance of following the court's directives to avoid further actions by the revenue authorities.

← Previous Next →