Court prohibits coercive measures against petitioner, including seizing bank accounts

The High Court directed that pending the decision on the application for interim relief, the opposite parties were prohibited from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, including seizing bank accounts. The Court emphasized that until the stay application was disposed of, no such measures should be taken, and the petitioner's bank accounts should be released immediately.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT (A) against assessment order for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
2. Seizure of petitioner's bank accounts by opposite parties.
3. Disputed tax amount of Rs. 53,33,55,784.
4. Dispute over payment of 20% assessed tax at appellate stage.
5. Pending application for interim relief before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Lack of interim protection granted by the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by CIT (A) against assessment order
The petitioner's appeal against the assessment order for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the petitioner challenged this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal is yet to make a decision on the matter, and an application for interim relief has been submitted. The petitioner had paid 20% of the assessed tax while filing the appeal before the CIT.

Issue 2: Seizure of petitioner's bank accounts
The opposite parties, in an allegedly arbitrary manner, seized the bank accounts of the petitioner, causing significant hardship. An amount of Rs. 53,33,55,784 was taken from the petitioner's bank accounts by the opposite parties. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that since the appeal was dismissed and no interim protection was granted by the Tribunal, they were within their rights to take steps for the recovery of the outstanding tax.

Issue 3: Disputed tax amount
The disputed tax amount of Rs. 53,33,55,784 was a central point of contention between the petitioner and the opposite parties. This significant sum was taken from the petitioner's bank accounts, leading to further complications in the legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Dispute over payment of 20% assessed tax
There was a disagreement between the parties regarding the payment of 20% of the assessed tax at the appellate stage. The petitioner had complied with this requirement, but the opposite parties still seized the bank accounts, prompting legal action.

Issue 5: Pending application for interim relief
The petitioner had moved an application for interim relief before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was still pending at the time of the judgment. The Tribunal had not granted interim protection, leading to the petitioner's bank accounts being seized.

Issue 6: Lack of interim protection by the Tribunal
The Tribunal had not provided interim protection to the petitioner, which allowed the opposite parties to take coercive measures, including seizing the bank accounts. The High Court directed that until the stay application was disposed of, no coercive measures should be taken, and the bank accounts of the petitioner should be released immediately.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that pending the decision on the application for interim relief, the opposite parties were prohibited from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, including seizing bank accounts.

---