Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1559 - HC - Income TaxProvisional attachment u/s 281B of bank accounts - applications for stay on recoveries u/s 220(6) rejected without providing reasoning in orders - claim for eligibility u/s 10(23FB) allowed by CIT(A) and Tribunal in earlier years - HELD THAT:- In the present case, we note that both the impugned order dated 29th January, 2019 passed by the respondent no.1 Assessing Officer and order dated 14th February, 2019 passed by the respondent no.2 – Pr. CIT have completely ignored the binding directions of this Court of the manner in which the stay applications are to be disposed of and the test to be applied while considering grant of a stay of demand under Section 220(6) pending disposal of appeal by CIT(A). In fact, none of the two orders set out even briefly the issue involved and the submissions of the parties in support of its application for stay and yet both the orders dispose of the stay application, adverse to the petitioner. On the above ground itself, the impugned order dated 29th January, 2019 of the Assessing Officer and 14th February, 2019 of the Pr. CIT are unsustainable. The order under Section 281B was issued just two days before the assessment order was passed and neither does the order mention any basis for apprehension of the Revenue nor does the affidavit state any reasons in support of the action nor any submission made in support of its order dated 18th December, 2018 under Section 281B of the Act. Moreover, the notices under Section 226(3) of the Act were issued on 19th December, 2018 to the petitioner's bankers. This without any amount being due from the petitioner to the Revenue on that date and calling upon the petitioner's bankers to pay over the amounts of the petitioner lying with them to the Income Tax Department. We also set aside the notice dated 15th February, 2019 by which the refund of ₹ 21.41 Crores available to the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is adjusted against the outstanding demand of ₹ 52.78 Crores for subject assessment year and direct the refund of ₹ 21.41 Crores to the Petitioner in accordance with law; and We set aside the order dated 18th December, 2018 passed under Section 281B of the Act. This as the Revenue has not been able to justify the basis of their apprehension that if the Petitioner's assets are not attached, the interest of the Revenue in recovering its dues would be prejudiced. we have to express our dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue in this matter. We pride ourselves as a State which believes in rule of law. Therefore, the least that is expected of the Officers of the State is to apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect the revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as the binding decisions of this Court. The action of Respondent nos.1 and 2 as adverted to in para 14 herein above clearly indicates that a separate set of rules was being applied by them in the case of the Petitioner. Equal protection of law which means equal application of law has been scarified in this case by the Revenue. It appears that the Petitioner is being singled out for this unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. In the above view, we direct the Respondent-Revenue to pay cost of ₹ 50,000/( Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment, it had to undergo at the hands of the Revenue.
|