Coercive Tax Recovery

0
373
Hammer

Case ID: 31251201721

Section 220(6), 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The AO wanted to preempt the Tribunal from dealing with the Stay application. The Act and conduct of the Revenue officials is against judicial conscience. Canons of law, justice and ethics have been broken down by the officials of the Department. An effort has been made to render the provisions of the law inoperative, debarring the assessee from availing any remedy from the higher forum



Chandigarh -Trib

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority -vs.- DCIT

20-Dec-2017

Click here to download full text

Facts of the case

Department through coercive measure attached the bank account of the assessee and recovered from different bank accounts without affording opportunity of hearing or giving any show cause notice to the assessee or declaring the assessee in default and even before the receipt of the order of the CIT(A) and no time was given to the assessee to seek the stay of the recovery from any higher forum/court

Held

  • Assessing officer has not acted in this case in the manner she was supposed to act being a quasi-judicial officer. Taking undue benefit from the procedural lacunas, sequence of events had been so managed by the officials of the Department during the period falling in between the date of pronouncement of the order of CIT(A) and the date of receipt of the copy of the same by the petitioner/assessee, thereby creating such circumstances, whereby, putting the assessee in a helpless condition and taking advantage of his helplessness by way of attaching the bank account of the assessee and withdrawing the money therefrom, before the assessee could receive the order of Ld. CIT(A) and approach to the higher forum for stay of the operation of the said order and thereby foreclosing the remedy available to the assessee under the Act and rendering the assessee helpless and remediless. Even the Department continued to make the coercive action even after the filing of the appeal and the present Stay Application before this Tribunal and even on a date when the matter was fixed for hearing on the Stay Application before this Tribunal. The act of the Assessing officer demonstrates that she wanted to preempt the Tribunal from dealing with the Stay application which was scheduled for hearing on November 22, 2017. The Act and conduct of the Revenue officials in this case is against the judicial conscience. Canons of law, justice and ethics have been broken down by the officials of the Department. An effort has been made to render the provisions of the law inoperative, debarring the petitioner from availing any remedy from the higher forum.

  • Under the circumstances it remains unexplained as to how the information regarding the decision of the appeal against the assessee travelled to the Assessing officer, prompting her to recover the amount from the assessee, that too by way of coercive means and without show causing the assessee or giving it an opportunity to approach to the higher Forum

  • The assessee has a fair case for seeking refund of the amount coercively recovered by the department

  • Taking into consideration the land and plot development activity of the assessee for providing residential as well as business accommodation to the residents, in our view, no further recovery is called for at this stage. The recovery of the remaining amount is, therefore, stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal whichever is earlier. It is directed that the assessee will not contribute to any unnecessary adjournments of the hearing of the appeals, in default of which, the Department will be at liberty to seek vacation of Stay

Also Read  Loss adjusted before initial assessment year cannot be brought forward notionally for sec. 80-IA(5)




Coram: Sanjay Garg (JM), Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (AM)

Counsel: Sudhir Sehgal

Appeal No.: Stay Application No. 18/Chd/2017 (ITA No. 1560/Chd/2017)

Relevant A.Y.: 2009-10 and 2013-14

In favour of: Assessee