Court sets aside assessment order, deems bank account attachment coercive, orders fresh consideration.

The Court set aside the assessment order demanding payment for stay, finding it lacked reasoning and a quasi-judicial approach. The Petitioner's bank account attachment without proper notice was deemed coercive. The Court directed a fresh consideration of the stay application within six weeks, emphasizing fair assessment and adherence to guidelines. The attachment was lifted, allowing the Petitioner to operate the bank account.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment order legality and correctness, demand for payment, stay application rejection, coercive measures, guidelines for revenue authorities, quasi-judicial authority duties, lack of reasoning in order, bank account attachment, judicial intervention, fresh consideration of stay application.

Assessment Order Legality and Correctness:
The Petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of the assessment order dated 31.01.2020 by the Income Tax Officer, which demanded payment of 20% of the assessed amount as a pre-condition for stay of the demand. The assessment order was based on the Petitioner's failure to disclose income from the sale of agricultural land, resulting in the addition of the sale transaction amount to the Petitioner's income under section 69-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Rejection of Stay Application and Coercive Measures:
The Petitioner, a senior citizen, filed a stay application due to health issues, financial constraints, and inability to operate his bank account under moratorium. The Respondent rejected the stay application and initiated coercive steps by attaching the Petitioner's bank account without providing reasonable prior notice, leading to the withdrawal of the entire balance.

Guidelines for Revenue Authorities and Quasi-Judicial Authority Duties:
The Court referred to guidelines established in previous cases for revenue authorities to follow when considering applications for stay of demand. These guidelines emphasized the need for a quasi-judicial approach, balancing the interests of the assessee with the protection of revenue, and considering all relevant factors before making a decision.

Lack of Reasoning in Order and Judicial Intervention:
The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning and reflected a non-application of mind by the assessing authority. As per previous judgments, the assessing officer must objectively decide on stay applications, considering that an appeal lies against the order. The Court intervened, setting aside the order dated 31.01.2020 and the attachment of the Petitioner's bank account.

Fresh Consideration of Stay Application:
The Court remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh consideration of the stay application, directing a decision within six weeks without taking coercive steps against the Petitioner. The attached bank account was ordered to be de-attached to enable the Petitioner to operate it.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and attachments, emphasizing the need for a fair and reasoned consideration of the stay application in accordance with the law and established guidelines.

---