Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jain Cycle Spares And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. on 12 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)188CTR(MP)4, [2004]267ITR60(MP)
JUDGMENT K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition for seeking following directions against the respondents:
(A) That this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to stay the recovery proceedings till the disposal of first appeal pending before the CIT(A)-II, Jabalpur.
(B) That the respondent No. 2 be kindly directed not to take any further coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of tax demand against the assessment which is pending in appeal before the CIT(A)-II, Jabalpur.
(C) That the respondents be further directed not to sell the shop attached by them by the order dt. 30th Jan., 2004 (Annex. P-11), till the disposal of first appeal pending before the respondent No. 3.
(D) That the CIT(A)-II may kindly be directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously.
(E) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be granted.
(F) Cost of the petition.
2. Contention of petitioner, is that against the assessment order Annex. P-1, petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Jabalpur, on 20th April, 2000, along with an application for stay of recovery under the assessment order. This appeal is pending before the respondent No. 3 and next date which is fixed by the authority is 15th March, 2004. During the pendency of appeal coercive action has been taken against the petitioner and the petitioner's shop has been attached vide Annex. P-11 on 30th Jan., 2004. Now the respondents are threatening the petitioner that entire stock of the shop of petitioner shall be attached and shop shall be locked. Further contention of petitioner is that as per circular Annex. P-10, dt. 21st Aug., 1969, the Department has directed that, where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher than the returned income, say, twice the latter amount or more, the collection of the tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeals, provided there were no lapse on the part of the assessee. Relying on the aforesaid circular, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents should not take any coercive action against the petitioner, till the decision of appeal.
3. As the appeal of petitioner is fixed for hearing on 15th March, 2004, and in case the appeal of petitioner is not heard finally on that date, the petitioner may file an application for hearing of pending application for grant of stay in appeal before respondent No. 3. If such an application is filed, the respondent No. 3 shall consider the prayer of petitioner for staying the recovery against the petitioner and till 15th March, 2004, interim order deserves to be issued in favour of petitioner.
4. In view of aforesaid, this petition stands finally disposed of with following directions;
1. The respondent No. 3 before whom appeal No, 32/2000-01 of petitioner for the asst. yr. 1997-98 is pending shall hear appeal on 15th March, 2004 and decide it expeditiously.
2. If for any justified reasons, the respondent No. 3 is not able to hear the appeal on the aforesaid date, then on filing appropriate application by the petitioner for issuance of interim direction, respondent No. 3 shall consider the prayer of petitioner for staying the recovery in accordance with law. While considering the prayer, petitioner may also draw the attention of the respondent No. 3 in respect of Circular No. 1/6/69-ITCC dt. 21st Aug., 1969, Annex. P-10.
3. Till 15th March, 2004 it is directed that the petitioner's shop shall remain attached by the respondents for recovery of amount, but the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.
No order as to costs.