Shri Kamlesh Nandlal Thakkar, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

MA 22/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0712 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: NANDLAL THAKKAR
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

M.A NO 22/A/2013 (IN S.P. NO.8/A/2013) . A.Y. 2008- 09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVED I, A.M.) M A. NO. 22/AHD/2013 (IN S.P. NO. 8/AHD/2013) (ASSESSMEN T YEAR:2008-09) SHRI KAMLESH NANDLAL THAKKAR NANDANVAN, SUSHEEL PARK, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD-380054 (APPELLANT) VS. THE I.T.O, WARD-7(2), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NANDLAL THAKKAR A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR. D.R ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-09-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2013 IN THE STAY PETITION, DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF RS 65,000/ - ON OR BEFORE 31.1.2013 WHEREUPON THE AO WOULD WITHDRAW THE ATTAC HMENT ORDER ON THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE OU TSTANDING DEMAND OF RS 2.01 LACS WAS STAYED TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL OR FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. TRIBUNAL VIDE CORRIGE NDUM DATED 31.1.2013 AMENDED THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO BE ON OR BEFORE 7 TH FEB. 2013 INSTEAD OF M.A NO 22/A/2013 (IN S.P. NO.8/A/2013) . A.Y. 2008- 09 2 31 ST JANUARY 3013. IT IS ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION THAT PUR SUANT TO THE ORDER OF H'BLE TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS 65,000/- O N 1.2.2013 AND ALSO INTIMATED THE AO ABOUT THE SAME BUT THE AO DID NOT ACT IMMEDIATELY IN LIFTING THE ATTACHMENT ORDER OF THE BANK. THE ASSES SEE THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT MA INTERALIA PRAYS THAT APPROPRIATE ORDER B E PASSED DIRECTING TO LIFT THE ATTACHMENT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE ITO FOR NOT OBEYING THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY URGED THAT DESPI TE H'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER TO LIFT THE ATTACHMENT ON MAKING THE PAYMENT, THE AO HAS IGNORED THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL AND BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS HAS RESULTED INTO HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE MORE SO IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT THE ATTACHMENT ON THE BANK WAS LIFTED ONLY ON 22.2.2013 . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST THE AO SO THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT PUT TO DIFFICULTY PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF STAY. 3. THE LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED AND PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF LETTER OF CIT, AHMEDABAD III DATED 7.6.2013 WHER EIN IT WAS STATED THAT ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE 18.2.2013 . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT TO THE A O THE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER OF THE ITAT BUT ON GETTING THE CONFIRMATION F ROM THE D.R. ABOUT THE GRANT OF STAY, AO ISSUED LETTERS TO BANK ON 15. 2.2013 THROUGH SPEED POST. ON THE QUERY OF THE BENCH WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO STAY APPLICATION HE POINTED OUT TO THE RELEVANT PARA 7 OF THE LETTER OF CIT, AHMEDABAD, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - M.A NO 22/A/2013 (IN S.P. NO.8/A/2013) . A.Y. 2008- 09 3 '7. AS REGARDS THE QUERY RAISED BY THE H'BLE ITAT R EGARDING THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT UPON FILING OF A STAY PE TITION BEFORE THE ITAT BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO SEPARATE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE ORDERS OF THE H'BLE TRIBUNAL. IN NORMAL/REGULAR APPEALS, THE APPEAL ORDERS OF THE H' BLE TRIBUNAL ARE SENT BY THE REGISTRY TO THE OFFICE OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMIS SIONER WHO IN TURN FORWARDS THE ORDERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS THROUGH THE RE SPECTIVE RANGE HEADS. THE LIMITATION FOR CONTESTING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L IN HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM NORMALLY STARTS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORD ER IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT. THE ACTION OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITA T IS ALSO INITIATED BY THE AO ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDERS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CIT.' 4. THE LD. D.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ACTED A S PER THE PROCEDURE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. IT IS A FACT THAT ORDER OF THE STAY WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.01.2013 IN THE PRESENCE OF DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHEREBY THE ATTACHMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT WAS TO BE LIFTED SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSEE DE POSITING A SUM OF RS. 65,000/-. PURSUANT TO THIS, ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 65,000/- ON 01.02.2013 AND INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER BU T THE ATTACHMENT WAS LIFTED ONLY ON 22.02.2013. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS DELAY ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN LIFTING THE ATTACHMENT OF BA NK ACCOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, HAD THERE BEEN A PROPER PROCEDURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNALS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTS A ND THEREBY AVOIDING HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF FURTH ERANCE OF JUSTICE TO THE TAXPAYERS, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REQUEST THE LD. CHI EF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1), AHMEDABAD TO ISSUE NECESSARY GUIDEL INES/ INSTRUCTIONS TO M.A NO 22/A/2013 (IN S.P. NO.8/A/2013) . A.Y. 2008- 09 4 HIS FIELD OFFICERS WHICH HE DEEMS FIT SO THAT SUCH TYPE OF AVOIDABLE SITUATIONS DO NOT ARISE IN FUTURE. 6. THE REGISTRY IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SEND A COPY OF THI S ORDER TO LD. CCIT(1), AHMEDABAD, FOR NECESSARY ACTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 - 09 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT ,AHMEDABAD