2000 (12) TMI 231 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Stay petition filed by the assessee seeking to stay the demand outstanding against him till the disposal of the appeal.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a stay petition in relation to ITA No. 338/Jp/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93, seeking to stay the demand of Rs. 15,62,373 along with interest until the appeal's disposal. The authorized representative of the assessee argued that the assessment was completed attributing an investment of Rs. 11.40 lakhs in heroin to the assessee due to findings against him under the N.D.P.S. Act. The assessee, being in custody during the proceedings, could not provide explanations or appear before the tax authorities. The N.D.P.S. proceedings concluded with the assessee's acquittal in 1997. The representative highlighted the outstanding tax of Rs. 15.52 lakhs against the assessee, emphasizing his inability to make payments while in custody. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay, arguing that the Revenue Department's concern is the recovery of outstanding demand, not the assessee's person. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, noting the futility of the coercive method of detention and the maximum permissible custody period of six months under the IT Act. Balancing the convenience, the Tribunal directed the stay of recovery against the outstanding demand, with the immovable property remaining attached and the assessee providing an undertaking not to dispose of the property. The appeal was scheduled for an early hearing on a priority basis.

This judgment addresses the stay petition filed by the assessee concerning the demand outstanding against him until the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, focusing on the circumstances of the case, including the assessee's past custody, the nature of the assessment, and the futility of continued detention for recovery. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for granting the stay against recovery, emphasizing the balance of convenience and the need to ensure the immovable property's attachment to secure the demand. The decision reflects a balance between the interests of the assessee and the Revenue Department, ensuring a fair resolution pending the appeal's disposal.