2014 (7) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes partial stay, orders deposit to avoid default. Compliance with tax instructions emphasized.

M/s. Chaudhary Hardayal Singh Shiksha Samiti Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-Ii) And Another

The court quashed the order allowing a partial stay application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.7 ... Stay application allowed in part – Held that:- The appellate authority had not discarded the genuineness of the reasons disclosed by the appellant for not producing the agriculturists before the AO - it has been noted in the order that 'certain genuine difficulties' were disclosed and 'which will be examined during appeal proceeding' - all the agriculturists have filed their affidavits in support of the transactions and there is some force in the submission of the assessee that the entire burden was not upon the assessee and the AO could have summoned them - where the assessment is unreasonably high pitched, the demand should be stayed during the pendency of the appeal – the assessee shall deposit a sum of Rs.7 lacs towards the demand – Partial stay granted. Issues:1. Quashing of the order allowing partial stay application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).2. Dispute regarding assessment year 2011-12 and the demand raised.3. Validity of the reasons for not producing agriculturists before the Assessing Officer.4. Compliance with Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions for unreasonably high-pitched assessments.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 29/5/2014 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which allowed a partial stay application directing a deposit of Rs.14 lacs out of the total demand of Rs.79,87,770 by a specified date failing which default would be declared.2. The dispute pertained to the assessment year 2011-12, where an order dated 31/3/2014 determined the assessed income at Rs.1,76,240 with a demand of Rs.79,87,770. The petitioner filed an appeal, and the stay application was not decided, leading to the writ petition.3. The appellate authority primarily made an addition based on the non-genuineness of a loan receipt of Rs.1,12,00,000 from agriculturists. The petitioner produced affidavits and statements of some agriculturists, leading to a partial stay order.4. The petitioner argued that the burden was not solely on them to produce all agriculturists before the Assessing Officer and cited relevant case laws and CBDT instructions for complete stay in high-pitched assessments. The court noted genuine difficulties disclosed by the petitioner and directed a deposit of Rs.7 lacs with additional security for the remaining amount to avoid being treated as a defaulter.5. The court considered the submissions and records, acknowledging the difficulties faced by the petitioner in producing all agriculturists. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach and compliance with CBDT instructions for unreasonably high assessments.6. The judgment emphasized expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority and directed the petitioner to cooperate without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The observations and directions were limited to the present petition and would not influence the appellate authority's decision.7. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions, subject to compliance by the petitioner.