IVAN SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2012 IVAN SINGH ... Petitioner Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent Mr. J.P. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amira A. Razaq, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:- 7th March, 2012 P.C: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the attachment order that is levied on the bank account and the coercive measures initiated by the department so as to recover the amount under the demand. 2. In the writ petition itself the petitioner assessee has pointed out that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment dated 12/12/2011 an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed and the Appellate Authority is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. An application for stay of the said demand was made in the pending appeal and a copy of the stay application is annexed at Annexure "G" to the writ petition. 4. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition was filed in this Court on 22/2/2012. After the

writ petition was filed, the stay application has been disposed of ex party and without any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Equally what the petitioners are communicated is the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 2/3/2012 deciding a rectification application filed on 14/12/2011. Even this application is disposed of without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. All that the petitioner prays is that he may be heard on the question of stay, otherwise even the pending appeal would be rendered infructuous. 6. After hearing Mr. Pardiwalla and Mrs. Dessai at some length, we are of the view that the petitioner desires only an opportunity to seek interim stay in the pending appeal. 7. That request made by the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances appears to be reasonable. 8. In view thereof, if the stay applicaiton has been disposed of in the absence of the petitioner, as alleged, then, we revive and restore the stay application for disposal afresh by the Appellate Authority as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the stay application, there will be a stay against recovery of the amounts under the subject demand by coercive measures. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides and we clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the contentions in so far as the demand and recovery is concerned, they are kept open.