Loading High Court cases…
850 orders · Page 17 of 17
The High Court, after hearing both sides, ordered that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The court directed that orders on the stay application should be passed without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P2) for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The principle established is that coercive recovery actions should be deferred pending a decision on a stay petition, promoting procedural fairness.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on this application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcing the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The issue of the merits of the appeal itself was not decided.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2) and pass orders on it without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. The principle is that appellate authorities should dispose of stay petitions promptly, and coercive recovery should be deferred pending such disposal.
The High Court, following its own previous Division Bench judgments in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and subsequent cases like W.P.(C).No.523/2020, which were based on the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, directed the appellate authority (1st respondent) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order itself but provided interim relief.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Court ordered that the Commissioner should afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcing the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, as the primary focus was on directing the appellate authority to decide the pending application.
The High Court held that notices and orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee after their death are a nullity and non-est in law. The Court noted that the assessee had died on March 16, 2018, and the impugned notice (Ext.P-5) was issued on September 7, 2018, while the assessment and consequential orders (Exts.P-12, P-13, P-15, P-16) were issued on December 28, 2019. Since the assessee was already deceased at the time of these issuances, the proceedings were deemed to be against a dead party, rendering them invalid. The Court found this position to be elementary and not requiring citation of judicial authority. Consequently, the Court quashed and rescinded the impugned notice and orders. However, the Court granted liberty to the competent authority to proceed against the legal representatives or heirs of the deceased assessee, if permissible in law, after ascertaining their identity and inheritance of the estate.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the impugned order or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the impugned order or the stay application itself, but ensured that the petitioner's right to have the stay application considered was protected.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the impugned order or the stay application itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the pending stay petition. The principle is that appellate remedies should be pursued and interim relief should be granted to maintain the status quo until the appellate authority decides on the interim application.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Court ordered that the Commissioner should pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should expedite the decision on stay petitions to prevent undue hardship to assessees facing coercive recovery while their appeals are pending.
The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on these applications without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The principle established is that appellate authorities should expedite decisions on stay applications to prevent prejudice to assessees, and coercive recovery should be halted pending such decisions.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P5) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P4) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The principle is that recovery proceedings should be deferred pending a decision on a stay application to prevent prejudice to the assessee.
The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P5) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order would be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely decision on the stay petition and preventing immediate recovery.
The High Court held that while the petitioner's case involves tragic circumstances due to his daughter's serious cancer ailment, he did not provide sufficiently comprehensive details of the treatment and did not submit a sworn affidavit detailing the circumstances that compelled him to divert his energies from business affairs. The Court found merit in the revenue's contention that the 1st respondent could not be blamed for the approach taken in the impugned order due to the lack of complete materials. However, referencing the dictum in Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd. case, the Court noted that if the delay is not deliberate or due to culpable negligence, a fair and liberal approach should be taken to ensure substantial justice. Consequently, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration. The impugned order was quashed, and the application for condonation of delay was remitted. The petitioner was directed to submit additional materials, including medical certificates and an affidavit, within one month. The 1st respondent is to consider these materials, afford a hearing, and render a decision within 2-3 months, considering the petitioner's contentions and relevant judicial precedents.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and subsequent similar cases, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for granting a stay need not be insisted upon in circumstances similar to the present case. The Court directed that the appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall ensure the final disposal of the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) without much delay and within a reasonable time limit. Crucially, the Court ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The ratio is that interim relief in the form of a stay of coercive steps pending appeal should be granted without insisting on pre-deposit, in line with established High Court precedents, to ensure justice.
The High Court, following the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and other subsequent judgments of the High Court, directed that the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without much delay and within a reasonable time limit, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Crucially, in the interest of justice, the Court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until final orders are passed disposing of the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself but provided an interim arrangement pending the statutory appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The appellate authority was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay application.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and other similar cases, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such circumstances. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final disposal of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but focused on the interim arrangement pending disposal.
The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to take up the stay application (Ext.P5(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P5) without much delay. The Tribunal was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the authorized officer of the department before passing a considered decision on the stay application, preferably within a period of 2 to 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further steps for enforcement of the orders impugned in the appeal were to be kept in abeyance by the respondent officer. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], held that insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be enforced in such cases. The court directed the 1st appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Crucially, the court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, held that the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in similar circumstances. The Court directed the appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously and without delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather provided interim relief regarding the recovery proceedings.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and other similar cases, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for granting a stay need not be insisted upon in cases like the present one. The Court directed the first appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final orders are passed disposing of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The ratio is that in situations analogous to those considered in the cited precedents, interim relief in the form of a stay on coercive recovery proceedings should be granted pending the disposal of the statutory appeal, without necessarily demanding pre-deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.
The High Court found the petitioner's factual contention to be correct and tenable. It observed that the 1st respondent (ITO) had indeed relied on an explanation dated December 30, 2019, which the petitioner had subsequently withdrawn and replaced with Ext.P1(a). The Court held that the decision-making process, which led to the assessment order (Ext.P2) by relying on non-existent material, was unreasonable and illegal. Without delving into the merits of the controversy, the Court decided that the assessment order required interdiction, notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appellate remedy. Exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order (Ext.P2) and remitted the assessment for fresh consideration by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, permit him to file additional written submissions, and then pass a considered decision in accordance with law without delay.
The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to take up the stay application (Ext.P-3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2) and pass orders on it without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather ensured that the petitioner's right to have the stay application considered was protected, and that recovery actions were paused pending that consideration.
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench order in W.A.No.1529/2019 which was in light of the Full Bench judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.'s case, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon in this case. The Court directed the first appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without much delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, until the final order disposing of the appeal is passed, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself but provided interim relief.
The High Court of Kerala, while disposing of the Writ Petition, did not delve into the merits of the rectification proceedings or the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. Instead, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to take up the pending rectification applications (Exts.P-8, P-15 & P-21) for consideration without delay. The Court mandated that the petitioner be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that orders be passed on these applications preferably within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance by the respondents concerned until orders are passed on the rectification applications. The operative direction was to dispose of the pending rectification petitions and stay recovery proceedings in the interim.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in connection with the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite its decision. The principle is that appellate remedies should be pursued and interim relief should be sought from the appellate authority, with the court intervening to ensure timely disposal of such applications and to prevent prejudice during the pendency of the interim relief.
The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P5) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The Commissioner was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that until orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order would be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process. No issues were left undecided by the High Court.
The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner in his appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself but ensured that the petitioner would not face recovery actions while the stay application was pending adjudication.
The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated January 16, 2020, considered the submission made by the petitioner's counsel. The counsel, on instructions from the party, indicated that the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought liberty to work out his remedies by filing statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with stay and delay condonation applications. The court granted this liberty to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to the sale notice (Ext.P10) or the validity of the CBDT circular (Ext.P11) regarding the pre-deposit requirement. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1529/2019, observed that in similar cases, the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting a stay was not to be insisted upon. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P-2) without delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final disposal of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the claim under Section 80P(4) but focused on the procedural aspect of staying coercive recovery pending appeal.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent-appellate authority to consider the stay petition (Ext.P5) within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay petition, further coercive proceedings for the recovery of the disputed amounts in the impugned assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the validity of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending the decision on the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that coercive recovery should be deferred until a stay application is adjudicated by the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the petitioner's plea as per the Ext. P3 stay application. The 2nd respondent was instructed to pass considered orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the stay application, further steps for the enforcement of the impugned Ext. P1 order were ordered to be kept in abeyance by the respondents. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself but ensured their timely consideration. The principle here is that courts can direct authorities to expedite proceedings and maintain status quo pending such expedited decisions.
The High Court, following its own Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and other similar cases, directed the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without undue delay. The Court further ordered that, in the interest of justice, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P2 appeal. The reasoning is based on the principle that insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not always be enforced, and that appellate authorities should decide statutory appeals expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that interim relief of stay of coercive steps pending appeal is warranted in certain circumstances, as per established High Court precedents.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], held that the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such cases. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final disposal of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspects concerning its disposal and interim relief.
The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances, directed the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority to take up the Ext. P5 stay application for consideration without any further delay. The Appellate Authority was instructed to pass orders on the stay application within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further steps for enforcement of the assessment order, including the demand notice (Ext. P3), shall be kept in abeyance by the respondents. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the stay application is considered promptly and recovery is held back in the interim.
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], ordered that the 1st respondent (appellate authority) shall ensure the final disposal of Ext.P2 appeal without undue delay, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court directed that until final orders are passed on Ext.P2, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court found that the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such cases. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1529/2019 which followed the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon. The Court directed the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal (Ext.P2) on its merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without undue delay. Furthermore, it was ordered that until final orders are passed on the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the taxability claim itself but focused on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.
The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the stay application (Ext.P7a) filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal is to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and the departmental authorities before passing orders on the stay application. The Court emphasized that this should be done without much delay, preferably within a period of 2-3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until the stay application is disposed of, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned proceedings are to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the Tribunal to proceed with its consideration.
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1529/2019, which followed the Full Bench decision in 'The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd.'s case, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon. The Court directed the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously and without delay, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, until final orders are passed on the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the claim under Section 80P(4) but focused on the procedural aspect of staying coercive recovery pending appeal.
The High Court, in light of a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1529/2019, which followed the Full Bench decision in *Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.*, held that the insistence on part payment of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until a final decision is rendered by the appellate authority on the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the Section 80P(4) claim itself but focused on the procedural aspect of coercive recovery pending appeal.
The High Court held that the assessees' contention regarding the CBDT circular is misconceived. Clarificatory circulars issued by government departments are binding on the department and its officers but do not bind the Court in interpreting statutory provisions. Such circulars cannot have primacy over a decision of the jurisdictional High Court. If a circular's interpretation runs contrary to a High Court's decision, it ceases to be valid. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited and Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries, emphasizing that circulars are not binding on Courts or Tribunals when a superior court has declared the law. The Court also referred to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hero Cycles, which held that circulars bind Income Tax Officers but not appellate authorities, Tribunals, Courts, or even the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal was not bound to consider the circular, especially when it contradicted the High Court's binding precedent. The appeals were dismissed as misconceived, as no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that circulars issued by the CBDT are not binding on the Courts or the Tribunal and cannot override judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal was not obligated to consider the circular when its decision was based on established High Court judgments.
The High Court held that circulars issued by the CBDT are not binding on the Courts or the Tribunal and cannot override judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal was not obligated to consider the circular when its decision was based on established High Court judgments.
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench order in W.A.No.1529/2019, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon in cases similar to the present one. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P-2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The principle is that in light of pronouncements on the core issue by higher benches, interim coercive measures should be stayed pending final adjudication by the appellate authority.
The High Court held that circulars issued by the CBDT are not binding on the Courts or the Tribunal and cannot override judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal was not obligated to consider the circular when its decision was based on established High Court judgments.
The High Court held that the impugned rejection orders (Exts.P11 and P12) warrant interdiction. The Court found that dismissing statutory appeals on technical grounds of limitation or defects, without adequate opportunity to rectify them, can lead to a failure of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection orders and remitted the appeals (Exts.P7 and P9) and stay applications (Exts.P8 and P10) to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits. The petitioner was granted permission to file an additional memorandum of grounds within ten days. The appellate authority was directed to consider the stay applications without delay, preferably within six weeks of filing the additional grounds, and until then, coercive steps for recovery of the demand were to be kept in abeyance. The Court clarified that these directions were for preserving the subject matter and did not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and dismissed the appeal. The Court reasoned that Section 44AB mandates the furnishing of an audit report in the prescribed form, duly signed by an Accountant, along with a further report by an Accountant in the prescribed form (Form 3CD). The second proviso to Section 44AB provides an exception if accounts are audited under another law, but this requires strict adherence to its stipulations. Even assuming that the audit report under the Co-operative Societies Act sufficed for the first limb, the further report in Form 3CD was not furnished. The Tribunal's factual finding that only the Annual Report and a certificate from the Joint Director were submitted, not the prescribed Form 3CA and Form 3CD, was upheld. The Court found the assessee had failed to show any 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B for the non-compliance. The contention based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2009 was rejected, as specific statutory provisions regarding furnishing the report in the prescribed form before the due date are unambiguous and cannot be overridden by a circular. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was sustained.
The High Court observed that the matters raised in the writ petitions had practically become infructuous because assessment orders had been duly passed by the competent assessing officer. The court noted that the petitioners' remedy, if they had any legally justiceable grievance, was to file a statutory appeal against these assessment orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners indicated that they intended to challenge the assessment orders through the appropriate legal channels. Consequently, the High Court, with these observations, directed that the writ petitions would stand dismissed as infructuous, while according liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies strictly in the manner known to law.