SEETA DEVI CHOUDHARY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3830/2020HC RajasthanRJHC01017356202019 March 2020Author: DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the assessment order or the petitioner's stay application, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. The Court directed the Assessing Authority (Respondent No.1) to decide the petitioner's stay application within a period of 15 days from the date of filing a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court's reasoning was to ensure that the petitioner's pending application for stay is addressed promptly, thereby providing a procedural avenue for her grievance before further coercive recovery measures are taken. The Court did not decide the substantive issues of the assessment or the appeal. The stay petition filed before the High Court was also disposed of as a consequence of the directions issued.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seeta Devi Choudhary, is challenging an assessment order dated 21.12.2019. She filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a stay application on 08.01.2020. The petitioner's grievance is that the Assessing Authority is not deciding her application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while the Appellate Authority has not taken up her appeal. Meanwhile, the Assessing Authority has attached her bank account for recovery of the demand. The petitioner apprehends further coercive measures and states that due to financial constraints, exacerbated by COVID-19, she cannot deposit the 20% mandatory amount required by a CBDT Circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Authority should decide the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a timely manner, especially when the petitioner has filed an appeal and a stay application before the Appellate Authority and her bank account has been attached for recovery of demand? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and recovery proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Assessing Authority's inaction on her Section 220(6) application, coupled with the attachment of her bank account and the delay in hearing her appeal, is causing prejudice. She also highlights her inability to deposit the mandatory 20% due to financial hardship, worsened by COVID-19. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. The court proceeded to pass an order without detailing the revenue's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3830/2020 Seeta Devi Choudhary W/o Shri Kewelram Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, Having Place Of Business At Village Bhorada, Tehsil Ahore, Jalore (Rajasthan)- 344043. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore, Rajasthan-344043. 2. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income-Tax Bhawan, Paota, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003. 3. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Branch Manage, Having Office At Near Bus Stand, Bhorada, Jalore- Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order 19/03/2020

1.

Admittedly, against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019, a statutory appeal has been provided under the Income Tax Act, 1951. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur.

2.

As a matter of fact, such appeal as well as a stay application has been filed on 08.01.2020. 3. Mr. Prateek Gattani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, the Assessing Authority is not deciding petitioner’s application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, and the Appellate Authority is not taking up his appeal for consideration and on the other hand, the Assessing (Uploaded on 19/03/2020 at 04:47:58 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:04:47 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-3830/2020] Authority – Respondent No.1 has attached petitioners Bank Account for recovery of the demand raised vide impugned assessment order.

4.

Petitioner, whose Bank account has already been attached, apprehends further coercive measures for recovery.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to financial constraint, which have further worsen on account of COVID-19, the petitioner is not in a position to deposit even the requisite amount of 20% as mandated by the Circular of CBDT.

6.

Without observing anything on merit of assessment order or on petitioner’s stay application, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of present writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Authority – respondent No.1 to decide petitioner’s stay application within a period of 15 days of filing certified copy of the order instant.

7.

Ordered accordingly.

8.

Stay petition also stands disposed of. (DINESH MEHTA),J 13-Ramesh/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/03/2020 at 04:47:58 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:04:47 AM)

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →