TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said impugned orders dated March 25, 2014 (order of reassessment), etc. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner : 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially the order of assessment was passed for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued for reassessment under section 147 of the Act of 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. Ultimately, the order of reassessment for both the aforesaid years was passed on March 25, 2014, which was challenged in appeal preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter to be referred to as "the CIT (Appeals)") and during pendency of the appeal, W. P. (T.) 5557 of 2014 was preferred before this court challenging the order of reassessment along with the demand dated March 25, 2014, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and subsequent demands of Rs. 48,75,050 and for Rs. 43,12,391 by demand notice dated June 25, 2014. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated January 20, 2015, finding no illegality on the part of the respondents because no application was preferred for stay agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and going to cause genuine hardship to the assessee, stay should be given to the order of attachment. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on this circular and submitted that the Department should have waited for sometime instead of attaching the bank accounts and writing letters to the customers/debtors of the petitioner and these illegal actions taken in haste has caused substantial loss to the petitioner. Interlocutory applications preferred in this writ petition with different prayers may kindly be allowed by this court. The submissions made on behalf of counsel for the respondents : 5. No observation may be made regarding the order of reassessment dated March 25, 2014 : Counsel for the respondents submitted that nothing may be observed on the orders of the reassessment dated March 25, 2014, passed by the respondents because the appeal against the said order of reassessment is pending. 6. No undue haste shown for recovery by the respondent-Department : It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the order of reassessment was passed on March 25, 2014, and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the month of A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as well as of the three interlocutory applications mainly for the following reasons : Reasons (I) Appeal against the order of reassessment was filed before the Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without a stay application : Order of reassessment was passed by the respondents for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, vide order dated March 25, 2014. Previous history prior to the order of reassessment is deliberately not mentioned in this order as it is not required for disposal of this writ petition as well as three interlocutory applications. This order of reassessment is challenged by this petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in the month of April, 2014, without any stay application. (II) During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, writ petition preferred against the order of reassessment was also dismissed : A writ petition, bearing W.P. (T.) No. 5557 of 2014 was also preferred by the petitioner before this court challenging the order of reassessment dated March 25, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first time, issued notice of recovery under sub-section (3) of section 226 of the Act of 1961 for recovery of the Income-tax reassessed. We see no reason to criticise the respondents for issuance of this notice. On the contrary, if the Department has not issued notice we would have criticised such action because enough time has lapsed after the order of reassessment was passed and, therefore, this notice is rightly issued by the respondents for recovery in the light of the fact that there was no stay application filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The respondents has to recover the reassessed Income-tax. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we find no sub stance in the hue and cry made by the petitioners against the conduct of the respondents and we find no undue haste made by the respondents for recovery of the Income-tax reassessed. On the contrary, it is apparent that the Department has waited for a considerable period (IV) Decisions and circular relied upon by the petitioner do not hold good in the facts of the present case : In support of the contention that the respondents should have waited till the appeal was dec....