Court permits delay condonation in Income Tax Act appeal, halts recovery actions pending stay decision, grants relief to petitioner.

The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal challenging the assessment order under the Income Tax Act, directing the appeal to be considered on its merits. Additionally, the court directed the first respondent to refrain from further recovery actions pending the resolution of the stay application, allowing the attachment of bank accounts to continue but prohibiting additional recovery proceedings until the stay application was decided. The court disposed of the writ petitions without imposing costs, ensuring relief to the petitioner in both matters.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 based on violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Delay in filing statutory appeal and condonation of delay.
3. Direction sought to prevent recovery action pending disposal of stay application.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order of assessment dated 30.12.2019 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, primarily alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority, albeit with a delay of three days. The court, considering the reasons for delay as a miscalculation of the limitation period, held that the delay is liable to be condoned. The appeal was directed to be taken on file by the Registry of the first appellate authority for consideration on the merits of the additions made.

2. Another writ petition sought a direction to the first respondent to refrain from initiating recovery action against the petitioner following the disputed demand raised in the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 until the disposal of the stay application pending before him. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that despite the stay application being pending, the bank accounts of the petitioner in multiple banks had been attached, and certain amounts had been appropriated. Consequently, the first respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the stay application within six weeks from the date of the court order, after hearing the petitioner either through video conference or physical hearing as mutually convenient. The court allowed the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts to continue but prohibited further recovery proceedings until the stay application was resolved.

3. The court disposed of the second writ petition in the terms mentioned above, directing the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions without imposing any costs. The judgment ensured that the statutory appeal was considered on its merits despite a delay, and it provided relief to the petitioner by halting further recovery actions pending the disposal of the stay application.

---