9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s right in law in extending stay of collection of demands beyond six months, without looking into the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court rulings, simply passed the impugned order which is perverse in nature? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Revenue from taking any coercive action without appreciating that the assessee has not made out the case before the first appellate authority and also not paid any tax dues beyond 20% of confirmed demand, when the issues in questions are covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India?" 3.The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in gold jewellery and bullion. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and group companies on 02.09.2014 as well as the residential premises of the assessee, who was the Managing Director of one of the group companies. For the assessment year under consideration (AY 2015-16), the assessee filed return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,42,42,750/- in response to a notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. Upon completion of such asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of by order dated 11.06.2019, by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, dated 25.03.2019 and directing the CIT(A) to dispose of the main appeal within a time frame. Thereafter, the appeal has been heard and dismissed by order dated 14.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. In terms of the directions issued in the writ petition in the stay petitions filed therein, a sum of Rs. 3 crores was paid by the assessee. Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed stay petitions praying for stay of the demand of Rs. 37,05,16,734/- on the ground that the assessee has already paid 20% of the demand, namely, Rs. 9,25,12,716/-. The Tribunal passed an order in the stay petition on 20.12.2019, whereby the Tribunal thought fit to fix the hearing of the main appeal itself at an early date and till then directed the Revenue not to initiate coercive action against the assessee for recovery of the outstanding demand. The Tribunal has referred to the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee, who placed challans for the payment of taxes to the tune of Rs. 9.26 crores post assessment framed by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal continued to remain pending and not taken up for disposal. 11. We deprecate the practice adopted by the Tribunal in exercising its suo motu power for issuing a Corrigendum to an order which has already been signed and the petition having been disposed of. The Tribunal becomes a functus officio and they can exercise their power of rectification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 254, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer and the procedure to be followed while exercising the power is provided in the first and second proviso under Sub-Section (2) of Section 254. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to how the Tribunal exercised its power in issuing a suo motu Corrigendum, that too by an undated order without hearing the Revenue or the Assessing Officer. As mentioned above, the appeal was not taken up for hearing on 13.01.2020 and obviously, the protection granted by the Tribunal in its interim order dated 20.12.2019 enured in favour of the assessee and the Revenue is right in its argument that the order of stay was in force beyond the period provided in the proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. 12. It is not clear as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal. 14. Subsequently, the assessee filed the third stay petition in S.P.No.184/Chny/2020, since a recovery notice was issued to the assessee on 20.10.2020. The Tribunal, by order dated 29.10.2020, disposed of the third stay petition, where it has noted that after the interim order was passed on 25.02.2020 and extended on 17.03.2020, the Tribunal did not function. The Tribunal has also noted that the assessee did not file any document establishing financial difficulties. However, it took note of the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that due to pandemic, the assessee was unable to run his business and is facing difficulties to pay the outstanding demand. Considering the pandemic situation, the Tribunal fixed the date of hearing for the appeal on 07.12.2020 with a direction to the assessee as well the Department to cooperate for concluding the final hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal directed the Department not to take any coercive steps to recover the outstanding demand till the next date of hearing i.e. 07.12.2020. We are informed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the appeal was heard on 07.12.2020 and orders have been reserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
