9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay orders were passed in view of subsequent developments / change of circumstances such as recovery of the amount by the Department in violation of stay order dated 15.2.2017 and thereafter order of the Tribunal directing for refund of the amount dated 28.4.2017 and thereafter the status quo order after the statement of the AO that amount has been refunded to the assessee and also in view of the reluctanceof the concerned DRs in arguing the matter and seeking adjournments The assessing officer in her application for condonation of delay with covering letter dated 20.2.2018 has referred to various dates of hearings stating that she was waiting for the disposal of the Misc. Application filed by the assessee against violation of the order dated 15.2.2017. This shows that the concerned ITO (E) was aware of the subsequent orders of stay/status quo, then why the application for vacation of two orders only has been filed is not understandable. The department officials fully knowing that no useful purpose will be served either by moving the present application and even knowing that the present application was infructuous and non-maintainableeven on the date of its filing, not onl y f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnish the written submissionsbut also directed the revenue not to recover any amount out of the impugned demand. That the orders of this Tribunal dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017 granting exparte stay against the recovery of the demand are totally non-reasoned orders passed by this Tribunal, contrary to the well settled law and the same are liable to be vacated.Further submissions have been made regarding the merits of the appeal alongwith reference to certain case laws. It has therefore been pleaded that the stay granted vide order dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017 be vacated. 3. It is also pertinent to mention here that the main appeal along with Stay Application came for hearing before this Tribunal on 22.3.2018, upon which final arguments were heard and the case had been reserved for orders. No separate arguments on the stay application had been addressed by either of the parties fully knowing that the said application would become infructuous on the disposal of the appeal. 4. However, this application moved by the AO for vacation of interim orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017 was not fixed along with the main appeal but separately and came for final hearing on 23.3.2018 i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rim measure. In the meantime, the Assessing officer i.e. ITO (E) despite the knowledge of the Stay Order, in defiance of the interim order dated 15.2.2017, illegally recovered the tax demand from the bank account of the assessee, for which the assessee filed a separate Misc. Application. It is further pertinent to mention here that on the next date of hearing i.e on 5.4.2017, Shri Ravi Sarangal, the then Ld. CIT-DR(since transferred) sought adjournment and on the oral request of Shri Ravi Sarangal Ld. CIT-DR, the case was adjourned to 25.4.2017. On 25.4.2017, arguments on the M.A. moved by the assessee for refund / taking action against the Assessing officer for illegally recovering of tax demand from the account of the assessee in violation of the stay order, were heard and thereafter the order dated 28.4.2017 was passed directing the Assessing officer to refund the amount illegally recovered and also to give her explanation in this regard, the operating part of the said order is reproduced as under: 10........In the case in hand, the Assessing officer was not only aware of the pendency of the Stay Application of the assessee before this Tribunal, but she has in fact violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly adjourned on the oral request of the Department to 19.9.2017. The parties were directed to maintain status quo. 10. Thereafter on 19.9.2017, the Bench did not function. As per the order of the Incharge Senior Member, the case was adjourned to 21.9.2017. 11. On 21.9.2017, the Ld. Sr. DR filed written submissions on behalf of the Assessing officer which was running into 14 pages. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested that he may be given time to go through the same. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 24.10.2017 along with stay application and the status quo was directed to be maintained. On 24.10.2017, the Ld. Departmental representative again requested for adjournment and accordingly the case was adjourned to 21.12.2017. However, on 21.12.2017, the Bench did not function and finally the case was heard on 23.3.2018. 12. In the meantime, the Assessing officer moved the present application for vacation of ex-parte Stay order dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017. However, the Registry found certain defects in the said M.A. andultimatel y the M.A. was fixed for hearing on 23.3.2018. As discussed above, the main appeal along with Stay Application had already been heard on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary evidence like the Stay order dated 15.2.2017 passed by the Bench, the bank accounts of the assessee was attached on 17.2.2017 and the outstanding demand of ₹ 29,08,230/- was recovered. However, no averments have been made as to the reasons or justification necessitating for the vacation of the interim stay granted vide order dated 15.2.2017, which otherwise had already been violated and disobeyed by the Assessing officer. Even, no explanation either orally or in writing has been offered till date as was directed vide order dated 28.4.2017 regarding the illegal act on the part of the Assessing officer in recovering the tax demand despite the recovery of demand specifically stayed by this Tribunal. 15. As noted above, on each and every date of hearing, fresh orders for maintaining status quo were passed. In view of this, since the period of operation of the orders has already passed/ has become a past, we will be astonished to know how the vacation of the stay order dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017 the period of operation of which was upto 4.5.2017 and 22.5.2017 respectively, at this stage, will in any manner of any help to the department. The vacation of order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication and even knowing that the present application was infructuous and non-maintainableeven on the date of its filing, not onl y filed this application, but also insisted for arguments despite that the hearing on the main appeal had already been concluded on a previous date. The only motive behind this application is to confront and show resentment and displeasure to this Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery in this matter. 18. The wording of the opening part of the application for vacation of stay clearly reveals that the Department is showing her resentment not only about the passing of ex-parte interim stay order but also towards the directions of the Tribunal for directing her to refund the amount illegally recovered. 19. At this stage, we are pained to note that that the Department, in case it is aggrieved of any order passed by the Tribunal, instead of approaching the higher forum/ Hon'ble High or the Hon'ble Apex Court, has now a days chosen the course of showing open defiance of, disrespect of or of open resentment to orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Justice dispensation system ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
