TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Stay Application Decision in 2 Months, Suspends Recovery</h1> <h3>N.K. Vinoba Versus The Income Tax Officer, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)</h3> The court directed the respondent to decide on the stay application within two months, allowing the petitioner a hearing and a reasoned order. Revenue ... Stay petition - Lockdown due to Covid-19 Pandemic - prayer for interim stay and appropriate direction issued to the appellate authority for the disposal of interim application along with the appeal within a reasonable period after lock down is over subject to deposit of the 20% of the demanded amount which is not phenomenal - HELD THAT:- This writ petition can be disposed of, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a call on application of stay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order. However, till such time, the revenue recovery proceedings based on Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the demand raised within a period of one month. Issues:1. Stay application and appeal against assessment order2. Notice of demand issued during pendency of appeal3. Impact of Covid-19 lockdown on appeal process4. Interim stay requested by petitioner5. Direction for disposal of interim application and appeal6. Condition for keeping revenue recovery proceedings in abeyanceAnalysis:1. The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal and a stay application against the assessment order. However, a notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) demanding an amount during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner faced difficulties due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent nationwide lockdown, which delayed the resolution of the appeal and stay application.2. Sri. Jose Joseph, representing the respondent, accepted the notice and opposed the petitioner's request for an interim stay. Instead, he suggested that the appellate authority be directed to decide on the interim application and the appeal within a reasonable period after the lockdown ends, subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the demanded amount.3. After hearing both parties and reviewing the case, the judge decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to make a decision on the stay application within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The decision was to be made after giving the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing and issuing a speaking and reasoned order. Until then, revenue recovery proceedings based on a specific document were to be suspended, provided that the petitioner deposited 10% of the demanded amount within one month.4. The judgment provided clarity on the course of action to be taken regarding the stay application, the appeal, and the revenue recovery proceedings. It balanced the interests of both parties by allowing time for the decision-making process while ensuring that the petitioner fulfilled a deposit condition to prevent immediate recovery actions by the revenue authorities. The judgment aimed to address the challenges faced by the petitioner due to the pandemic situation and the subsequent delays in the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
