Court upholds Income-tax Department's actions in recovering reassessed tax amount. Petition dismissed, demands upheld.

The court dismissed the writ petition and interlocutory applications, upholding the legality of the Income-tax Department's actions in recovering the reassessed tax amount. The court found the Department's actions reasonable, given the petitioner's failure to comply with the instalment plan and absence of a stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The reassessment order and demands were upheld as lawful, with the court ruling in favor of the respondents and denying the petitioner's requests for quashing notices, refund of appropriated money, and restraining orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of notices dated January 21, 2015, issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Refund of money appropriated under the order of attachment.
3. Quashing, withdrawing, rescinding, and revoking the impugned final reassessment order and the demand dated March 25, 2014, for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
4. Interim order restraining the respondent authorities from giving effect to the impugned orders dated March 25, 2014.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of notices dated January 21, 2015, issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Department showed undue haste in recovering the reassessed tax amount while the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The petitioner contended that the Department should have waited until the appeal was decided. The respondents countered this by stating that the reassessment order was passed on March 25, 2014, and the petitioner did not file a stay application until January-February 2015. The Department waited for a considerable period before issuing the notice on January 21, 2015, after the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed on January 20, 2015. The court found the Department's actions reasonable and did not accept the petitioner's contention.

2. Refund of money appropriated under the order of attachment:

The petitioner sought a refund of the money appropriated under the order of attachment during the pendency of the appeal. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the instalment plan granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-III, Jamshedpur. The court noted that the respondents had shown leniency by granting 16 instalments for the payment of approximately Rs. 64,00,000, but the petitioner defaulted on the very first instalment. The court found no reason to entertain the request for a refund.

3. Quashing, withdrawing, rescinding, and revoking the impugned final reassessment order and the demand dated March 25, 2014, for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12:

The petitioner challenged the reassessment order and the subsequent demands. The court observed that the petitioner had already appealed against the reassessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without filing a stay application. The writ petition challenging the reassessment order was dismissed on January 20, 2015. The court found no illegality in the reassessment order or the demands and upheld the actions of the respondents.

4. Interim order restraining the respondent authorities from giving effect to the impugned orders dated March 25, 2014:

The petitioner sought an interim order to restrain the respondent authorities from enforcing the reassessment order and demands. The court noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had granted a stay on the demand of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and allowed instalments for the payment of the remaining amount. The petitioner failed to comply with the instalment plan, leading the respondents to take legal recourse for recovery. The court found no reason to grant the interim order requested by the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition and all interlocutory applications, finding no substance in the petitioner's arguments. The respondents' actions were deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law, given the petitioner's failure to comply with the instalment plan and the absence of a stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The court upheld the reassessment order and the subsequent demands, stating that the Department acted within its rights to recover the reassessed tax amount.

---