IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
AGL Logistics Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12279 of 2022 & CM Appl. 36869 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeking compliance with prior court orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history of the hearing (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's dissatisfaction with the assessing officer's compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. order directing timely resolution of the appeal (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.:
CM APPL.36870/2022 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12279/2022 & CM APPL.36869/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to decide the stay application dated 10th September, 2021 filed by the Petitioner in compliance with the Order dated 02nd September, 2021 passed in WP(C) No.8875/2021 and to decide the Appeal filed on 26th August, 2021 by the Petitioner against the assessment order dated 25th June, 2021 and to grant a fair, reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to reply/respond to the said Show Cause Notices dated 15th April, 2021 and 26th May, 2021 before passing any order in relation thereto.
2. In the present writ petition, it has been averred that in violation of the order dated 02nd September, 2021 passed in WP(C) No.8875/2021, the Respondent has failed to dispose of the stay application dated 10th September, 2021 filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from its filing, as directed in the said order.
3. When the present writ petition was listed for the first time on 25th August, 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for some time to obtain instructions.
4. On the next date of hearing i.e. 14th September, 2022, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue had sought an adjournment. It was only on 21st September, 2022 that a one-line cryptic order disposing of the stay application was furnished to this Court.
5. This Court on 21st September, 2022 passed the following order:
"Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed-over an e-mail sent to the petitioner by the Assessing Officer. The said e mail reads as under :
"Dear Assessee,
Your application for stay of demand for A.Y 2018-19 has been considered.
You are requested to deposit 20% of the demand and balance will be stayed till the disposal of appeal filed by you.
(Virender Kumar Rathee)
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1), New Delhi."
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order disposing of the petitioner's application for stay of demand is cryptic and non-reasoned.
In the present case, this Court had directed disposal of the said stay application as far back as 2nd September, 2021. As the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Now, the Assessing Officer has passed a perfunctory order without dealing with any contentions and submissions of the petitioner. Prima facie this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order disposing of the stay application is cryptic and non-reasoned.
Consequently, the Assessing Officer is directed to be personally present in Court on 14th October, 2022."
6. In pursuance to the said order, the Assessing Officer is personally present in Court. He states that he could not comply with the order dated 2nd September, 2021 disposing of the earlier Writ Petition being WP(C) 8875/2021, as the said file was not handed over by his learned predecessor to him.
7. This Court was inclined to order an inquiry by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as to why the said file was allegedly not handed over by the previous Assessing Officer to the present Assessing Officer.
8. At this stage, the Assessing Officer expresses unconditional apology as well as regret for not complying with this Court's order dated 2nd September, 2021. In view of the aforesaid apology, this Court refrains from taking any action against the Assessing Officer. However, he is directed to be more careful in the future.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would be satisfied i
The court emphasized the necessity for reasoned decisions in tax proceedings to uphold procedural fairness and accountability.
Authority to hear appeals and the need for a personal hearing prior to deciding a stay application are established commitments under the Income Tax Act.
The court upheld the principle of consistency by maintaining existing stay orders against final assessments pending a writ petition, emphasizing compliance in tax deposits.
The court upheld the authority's decision to grant a stay subject to a 10% deposit, emphasizing the need for procedural propriety in stay applications.
Insufficient time provided to respond to a complex show cause notice violates principles of natural justice, warranting the reassessment of the proceedings.
Natural justice mandates that parties be given adequate time to respond to show cause notices, especially when new demands are presented.
Assessment orders must uphold principles of natural justice, ensuring affected parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond, particularly in cases involving technical barriers to communication.
Tax authorities have discretion to grant stay on demand lesser than twenty percent, requiring consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.