TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the recovery notice issued during the pendency of the stay applications before the Assessing Officer was sustainable in law. (ii) Whether the stay applications required reconsideration and the recovery notice liable to be quashed.
Issue (i): Whether the recovery notice issued during the pendency of the stay applications before the Assessing Officer was sustainable in law.
Analysis: The petitioner had already filed stay applications under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging the demand arising from the assessment order and the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority. The Board's Instruction No. 1914 dated 02.12.1993 and the Office Memoranda governing stay of disputed demand contemplate expeditious disposal of stay requests and grant of stay on specified payment norms. In that situation, initiation of coercive recovery while the stay applications remained pending was contrary to the governing administrative instructions and could not be justified.
Conclusion: The recovery notice was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether the stay applications required reconsideration and the recovery notice liable to be quashed.
Analysis: Since the recovery action was taken without first deciding the pending stay requests, the proper course was to set aside the impugned recovery notice and require the Assessing Officer to decide the stay applications afresh after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law. The matter was therefore restored for reconsideration on the stay issue.
Conclusion: The stay applications were directed to be reconsidered and the matter was remitted for fresh orders.
Final Conclusion: Coercive recovery during the pendency of a stay request was disapproved, and the assessee obtained relief against the impugned notice with a direction for fresh consideration of stay on the disputed demand.
Ratio Decidendi: When a stay application against disputed tax demand is pending, coercive recovery should not proceed without first deciding the stay request in accordance with the governing instructions and after granting an opportunity of hearing.
TaxTMI 
