2024 (7) TMI 968 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - order granted the petitioner the right to remit 20% in 18 installments - financial stringency in granting stay - HELD THAT - As regards the application for stay, such application is required to be considered by taking into account the classical principles of prima case case, balance of convenience and financial stringency. On perusal of the impugned order, the second respondent appears to have taken into account the financial stringency pleaded by the petitioner and has permitted the petitioner to make the pre-deposit in 18 installments. Since find no infirmity in such order, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Directing the third respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 14.01.2020 in respect of assessment year 2022- 23 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Issues:
1. Challenge to an order disposing of a stay petition.
2. Delay in disposal of appeal.
3. Consideration of financial stringency in granting stay.
4. Senior citizen status of the petitioner.
5. Guidelines for expeditious disposal of appeals.
6. Consideration of classical principles for stay application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order disposing of a stay petition related to an assessment order for the year 2012-13. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was pending for over four years. The petitioner sought an interim stay, which was initially granted until a specified date. Subsequently, a stay petition was filed before the second respondent, leading to the impugned order.

2. The delay in disposing of the appeal was a crucial issue raised in the petition. The petitioner, being a senior citizen, emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The petitioner's appeal had been on record since January 2020, and considering the extended duration and the petitioner's senior citizen status, the court found merit in expediting the appeal's resolution.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued for the consideration of financial stringency along with other factors in granting a stay. Referring to guidelines for expeditious disposal of appeals, the counsel highlighted the petitioner's eligibility for such treatment based on the quantum of demand and senior citizen status. The respondents, however, pointed out protective additions made in the assessment, indicating a potential confirmation of such additions against the petitioner.

4. The court acknowledged the need to evaluate a stay application based on classical principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial stringency. Upon reviewing the impugned order, it was noted that the second respondent had considered the petitioner's financial situation and allowed installment payments for the pre-deposit. Finding no flaw in this decision, the court declined to interfere with the order.

5. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent to resolve the petitioner's appeal within four months from the date of the court's order. The judgment emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal, especially considering the prolonged pendency of the appeal and the petitioner's senior citizen status. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed without any costs being imposed.

← Previous Next →