2023 (1) TMI 422 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Necessity to deposit 20% of the disputed demand - HELD THAT - Insofar as the reliefs sought for in prayer clauses (a) to (c) are concerned, liberty is given to the petitioner to move an application before the aforementioned authority within 10 days of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon an application being made, the concerned authority will deliberate on the same after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner and pass an order within the next three weeks. A copy of the order will be furnished to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Till such time as the aforementioned authority takes a decision on the petitioner s application, no precipitate action will be taken qua the petitioner. Needless to add, this direction will operate only if the petitioner moves an application within the time-frame set forth hereinabove. If the order is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks.Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking interim relief.
2. Writ petition for quashing an Impugned Order and granting stay of demand.
3. Writ petition for directing refund and stopping further recovery.
4. Writ petition for expediting disposal of appeal by the CIT (A).

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application seeking interim relief. The court allowed the application subject to the petitioner submitting legible copies of annexures before the next hearing.
2. The court issued notice to the respondents/revenue and accepted notice on their behalf. The court decided to hear and dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself without requiring a counter-affidavit.
3. The substantive prayers in the writ petition included seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the Impugned Order and grant a stay on the demand raised for certain assessment years. Additionally, the petitioner sought writs of Mandamus for directing refund, stopping further recovery, and expediting the disposal of appeals by the CIT (A).
4. The petitioner's counsel agreed to make an application before the CIT (A) to expedite the appeal process. The court allowed the petitioner to move an application within 10 days regarding the recognition of surcharge as income and directed the concerned authority to pass an order within three weeks upon receiving the application.
5. The court disposed of the writ petition with the condition that no precipitate action would be taken against the petitioner until a decision is made on the application. If the decision is adverse, it should not be implemented for two weeks. The pending application was closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.