Gaura Bai Sahu vs. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

WP/4061/2015HC Madhya Pradesh23 March 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages

For Petitioner: Sanjay Mishra

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without entering into the merits of the controversy, deemed it appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal within 45 days from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order. Pending the decision on the appeal by the appellate authority, coercive steps for the recovery of the assessed amount were ordered to remain in abeyance. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the appeal had been pending since April 9, 2014, and directing an early disposal would meet the interest of justice. The specific question of whether the stay was rightly rejected was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Sanjay Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for stay of demand by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The rejection was based on CBDT Instruction No. 1914 Part C(i). The petitioner argued that a stay should have been granted, citing the Kerala High Court judgment in N.Rajan Nair Vs. Income Tax Officer and another, which discussed stay of recovery when the difference between demand and return income is doubled. The petitioner's appeal had been pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) since April 9, 2014. The High Court noted the pending appeal and the petitioner's grievance regarding the stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of demand, considering the provisions related to stay of recovery and the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in N.Rajan Nair Vs. Income Tax Officer and another? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that based on the Kerala High Court judgment in N.Rajan Nair Vs. Income Tax Officer and another and the circular referred to therein, a stay should have been granted, particularly when the difference between the demand and the return income is doubled. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.NO.4061/2015 23/03//2015 Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that an appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and even though he has applied for stay of the demand, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has rejected the application for stay vide Annexure P-6 based on a circular of the CBDT being Instruction N0.1914 PartC(i). Placing reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of N.Rajan Nair Vs. Income Tax Officer and another, reported in CTR Encyclopaedia on Indian Tax Laws, page-1 and the circular referred to therein in para-8 pertaining to stay of recovery, which provides that, if the difference between the demand and the return income is made double, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances stay should have been granted. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the appeal of the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Authority namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), interest of justice would be met in case Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal at an early date and till decision on the appeal coercive steps for recovery is stayed. Keeping in view the fact that the appeal is pending consideration before the appellate authority since 09-04-214, therefore, for the present without entering into controversy on merit, we deem it appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing all concerned within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order . Till the appeal is not decided by the appellate authority, coercive steps for recovery of the amount as assessed shall remain in abeyance. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE JUDGE hsp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →