Court Overrules Orders, Calls for New Review on Income Tax Applications for 2013-14 & 2014-15.

The HC set aside the impugned orders rejecting applications under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication by the CIT. The Court mandated a personal hearing for the petitioner and prohibited coercive actions until the stay applications were resolved. The writ petitions and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging orders rejecting applications and directing payment under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitions challenged orders rejecting applications and directing payment under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner filed appeals seeking stay on the recovery of demand after being held 'assessee-in-default' for short deduction of tax at source. The petitioner contended that the orders directing payment were non-speaking and failed to address their contentions adequately.

2. The petitioner argued that they had executed contracts for service, not contracts of service with consultant doctors, who had already paid their tax dues. They claimed that the condition under the Office Memorandum regarding payment of twenty per cent of the disputed demand was directory, not mandatory, citing a Supreme Court decision allowing tax authorities to grant stay on deposit of a lesser amount pending appeal.

3. The Court observed that the requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand could be relaxed in appropriate cases, as per the Office Memorandums. It noted instances where the deposit condition could be waived, such as when appellate authorities had ruled in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Court emphasized the need for reasoned orders and consideration of basic principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in deciding stay applications.

4. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication on the stay application. It directed a personal hearing for the petitioner's representative before a specified date. Until the stay applications were decided, no coercive action could be taken against the petitioner regarding the demands arising from the orders. The writ petitions and pending applications were disposed of with these directions.

---