2016 (4) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Court criticizes Assessing Officer, directs application to Additional Commissioner, emphasizes fair treatment, timely acknowledgment.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, criticizing the Assessing Officer's conduct for failing to acknowledge the petitioner's stay application ... Stay application - Held that:- Assessing Officer to accept a stay application and not immediately give acknowledgement of its receipt is unacceptable. The least that is expected of an civil servant is to be fair and civil. In the absence of the above, his conduct is not one becoming of an Officer belonging to the prestigious Indian Revenue Service. The least that is expected of an Officer is that when a person files an application / letter, which is accepted by him, an acknowledgement should be forthwith given to the party filing the application or letter. In case he refuses to accept the letter he should endorse on the letter / application the reason why it is not being accepted with a line or two for the refusal to accept. In case he does accept it and give an acknowledgment he can deal with the applications / letters as is appropriate in accordance with law. We believe that what has happened in this case is an aberration. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax would ensure that his Officers do not behave in such an high handed and unfair manner, not expected of civil servants. Be that as it may, the stay application is still pending decision. Normally, we would have let the Assessing Officer decide the same. However, looking at the manner in which the petitioner has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in regard to its stay application dated 17th February, 2016, it would be in the interest of justice that the application for stay filed by the petitioner be heard by another Officer different from the Assessing Officer i.e. respondent no.1 herein. The Officer to deal with the petitioner's stay application dated 17th July, 2016 is to be selected / nominated by the Revenue. Issues:1. Refusal of the Assessing Officer to accept the petitioner's application for stay.2. Lack of acknowledgment for the stay application dated 17th February, 2016.3. Conduct of the Assessing Officer in handling the petitioner's application.4. Request for the application to be heard by a different Officer.5. Direction for the application to be dealt with by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.Analysis:1. The petition was filed against the Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the petitioner's application for stay dated 17th February, 2016. The petitioner had filed an appeal against a raised demand of Rs. 52.08 crores for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite the Assessing Officer accepting the stay application for demand and penalty proceedings, an acknowledgment was not provided for the stay application, leading to the filing of the petition.2. The Assessing Officer, in an affidavit-in-reply, mentioned that applications should be filed at the ASK center, but he acknowledged the stay of penalty application. The court found the explanation inconsistent with his conduct, as he acknowledged the stay application on 23rd February, 2016, immediately after being served the petition. The court deemed the explanation unacceptable.3. The court criticized the Assessing Officer's conduct, stating that civil servants should be fair and civil. The lack of acknowledgment caused uncertainty for the petitioner regarding when coercive proceedings might commence. The court emphasized the importance of providing acknowledgment promptly to the party filing an application.4. Due to the unsatisfactory behavior of the Assessing Officer, the court directed that the application for stay be heard by another Officer selected by the Revenue, different from the Assessing Officer. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was designated to handle the petitioner's application for stay in accordance with the law.5. The respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, was directed to deal with the petitioner's application for stay as per the court's order. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, ensuring that justice was served by assigning the application to a different Officer for a fair decision.