2024 (4) TMI 355 - HC - Income Tax

Priority/out of turn hearing of the appeals pending with CsIT (AU) and/or CIT(A) - Stay of demand - Rejection of Application for hearing of the Appeal against the Assessment order on the ground of law pendency of large number of high pitch cases before the Appellate Commissioner - as submitted that though the amount involved is more than a crores and the petitioner is being subjected to genuine hardship the petitioner s appeal has not be taken up disposal HELD THAT - There are several high pitched appeals are pending along with the regular appeals before the Appellate Commissioner. It would be humanly impossible to the Appellate Commissioner to take up the petitioner s appeal against the Assessment order dated 21.03.2022. It would be unfair if the petitioner s case is taken up out of turn overlooking the other pending appeals of other assessees. Considering the above Court is inclined to give liberty to file appropriate application to stay recovery proceedings. In case the petitioner moves such application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order such application may be considered and disposed of the same on merits and in accordance with law by the appropriate Authority. Pending such exercise the respondent shall keep all recovery proceedings in abeyance.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of the petitioner's application for hearing of the Appeal against the Assessment order on the ground of law and pendency of high pitch cases before the Appellate Commissioner.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeal hearing application based on the large number of pending cases before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner cited a previous court decision and a CBTD Circular to support their claim of genuine hardship due to the significant amount involved. The respondents argued that the Appellate Commissioner was overloaded with appeals, making it impossible to prioritize the petitioner's case. The Court considered both sides' arguments and noted the CBTD Circular allowing priority hearings for cases meeting specific criteria.

The Court acknowledged the genuine hardship faced by the petitioner but also recognized the constraints of the overloaded Appellate Commissioner. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an application to stay recovery proceedings within four weeks. The Court directed the respondents to halt all recovery proceedings until the application is considered and disposed of by the appropriate Authority. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.