ITO (Exemptions), Chandigarh V. M/s Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh

MA 37/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6411 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEGHRAJ MANAGER
• Keywords: Application of stay; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 37/CHD/2018 IN STAY APPLICATION NO. L8/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THE ITO (EXEMPTIONS) VS. CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS CHANDIGARH ASSOCIATION, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAATC4943J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SH. MEGHRAJ, MANAGER DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.04.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPLICATION MOVED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR VACATION OF AD INTERIM STAY ORDERS DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT IN THIS CASE THE THEN CONCERNE D ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED A VERY WELL-REASONED ORDER WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND WELL-REA SONED ORDER WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER THEOFFICE OF ITO(E) HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND, HOWEVER, THE M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 2 ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT IT HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND BEFORE THE ITAT (THIS TRIBUNAL). THAT THEREAFTER THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: THE MAIN APPEAL IS ADJOURNED TO 05.04.2017 FOR FIL ING OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STAY APPLICA TION IS ALSO ADJOURNED TO 05.04.2017. IN THE MEANTIME, DEMA ND WILL REMAIN STAYED TILL NEXT DATE OF HEARING . 2. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE THE STAY ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 PASSED BY THE BENCH, THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ATTACHED ON 17.2.2017 A ND THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.29,08,230/- WAS RECOVERED. THAT THEREA FTER THE TRIBUNAL PASSED ORDER DATED 28.4.2017 IN THE M.A. MOVED BY T HE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE SAID RECOVERY, WHEREBY IT NOT ONLY DIRECTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND FU RNISH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSBUT ALSO DIRECTED THE REVENUE NOT TO REC OVER ANY AMOUNT OUT OF THE IMPUGNED DEMAND. THAT THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBU NAL DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 GRANTING EXPARTE STAY AGAINST THE RE COVERY OF THE DEMAND ARE TOTALLY NON-REASONED ORDERS PASSED BY THIS TRI BUNAL, CONTRARY TO THE WELL SETTLED LAW AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE VACA TED.FURTHER SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL A LONGWITH REFERENCE TO CERTAIN CASE LAWS. IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN PLEADED TH AT THE STAY GRANTED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 BE VACATED. 3. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE MA IN APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY APPLICATION CAME FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL ON 22.3.2018, UPON WHICH FINAL ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD AND THE CASE HAD B EEN RESERVED FOR M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 3 ORDERS. NO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS ON THE STAY APPLICATI ON HAD BEEN ADDRESSED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES FULLY KNOWING THAT THE SAI D APPLICATION WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 4. HOWEVER, THIS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE AO FOR VA CATION OF INTERIM ORDERS DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 WAS NOT FIXED ALONG WITH THE MAIN APPEAL BUT SEPARATELY AND CAME FOR FINAL HEARING ON 23.3.2018 I.E. THE NEXT DAY AFTER CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE MAIN APPEA L. 5. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY PRESSED FOR HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF THE AFORESAID INTERIM ORDERS DATED 15.2 .2017 AND 28.4.2017. DESPITE APPRISED BY THE BENCH THAT NO USEFUL PURPOS E WILL BE SERVED AT THIS STAGE AS THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE SAID ORDERS WAS JUST AS AN AD INTERIM MEASURE TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND THAT THE SAID PERIOD OF OPERATION OF ORDER HAS ALREADY EXPIRED AND EVEN VARIOUS SUBSE QUENT INTERIM/FILE ORDERS THEREAFTER HAVE BEEN PASSED WHEREIN SUBSEQUE NT DIRECTION HAD BEEN PASSED AND THAT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDERS DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 HAVE MERGED INTO/SUPERSEDED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT INTERIM ORDERS/STAY ORDERS PASSED FROM TIME TO TIME AND EVEN THE MAIN CASE/APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, HENCE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE VACATION OF THE SAID INTERIM STAY ORDERS PERTAINING TO THE PAST PERIOD, AT THIS STAGE. THAT EVEN THE STAY APPLICATION ITSELF, WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ON T HE DECISION ON THE MAIN APPEAL AND THAT THE DIRECTIONS, IF ANY GIVEN IN ANY INTERIM ORDER PASSED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL WOULD CEASE TO OP ERATE AS THE SAME WILL BE GOT MERGED INTO THE FINAL ORDER. M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 4 IN VIEW OF THE INSISTENCE OF THE LD. DR, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPLICATION. 6. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER WITH THIS ORDER, WE DE EM IT FIT TO DISCUSS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THIS CASE. THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 15.2.2017 CONSTITUT ED OF SH. BHUVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER (SINCE TRANSFERRED TO DELHI) AND SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, LD. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NOW, AT THIS STAGE, I T IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE APPLICA TION FOR STAY OF DEMAND CAME FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 15.2.2017. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO PRODUCE MORE DOC UMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IN THE MEANTIME, HE ALSO REQUESTED FOR T HE STAY OF THE RECOVERY OF DEMAND. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 ADJOURNED THE MAIN APPEAL AS WELL AS THE STAY APPLICATION TO 5.4.2017 AND IN THE MEANTIME IT WAS ALSO ORDERED THAT THE DEMAND WILL REMAIN STAYED TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. 7. NEITHER THE STAY APPLICATION NOR THE MAIN APPEAL WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAID DATE 15.2.2017. THE RECOV ERY OF DEMAND WAS STAYED AS AN INTERIM MEASURE. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. ITO (E) DESPITE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STAY ORDER, IN DEFIANCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.2.2017, ILLEGALLY RECOVERED THE TAX DEMAND FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A SEPARATE MISC. APPLICATION. IT IS FURTHER PERTINENT TO MENTION HE RE THAT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E ON 5.4.2017, SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, THE T HEN LD. CIT-DR(SINCE TRANSFERRED) SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ON THE ORAL REQ UEST OF SHRI RAVI SARANGAL LD. CIT-DR, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.4 .2017. ON 25.4.2017, M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 5 ARGUMENTS ON THE M.A. MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REF UND / TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ILLEGALLY RECOVER ING OF TAX DEMAND FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE STA Y ORDER, WERE HEARD AND THEREAFTER THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2017 WAS PASSED DIR ECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFUND THE AMOUNT ILLEGALLY RECOVERED AN D ALSO TO GIVE HER EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD, THE OPERATING PART OF T HE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 10..IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY AWARE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, BUT SHE HAS IN FACT VIOLATED THE STAY ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 OF THIS TRIBUNAL DESPITE A WRITTEN INTIMATION REGARDING THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE TO H ER OFFICE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE , WE DIRECT THE REVENUE TO IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT ANY FAIL , REFUND THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY REC OVERED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE DIR ECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE PROCEEDINGS FURTHER AGAINST THE AS SESSING OFFICER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE HER EXPLANATION REGARDING THE ILLEGAL ACT ON HER PART. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PERSONALLY COME PRESENT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. SHE IS A LSO DIRECTED TO FILE HER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THIS RESPECT AND FURNISH REPORT REGARDING COMPLIANCE OF THE ABOVE STATED DIRECTIONS OF REFUND ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 22.05.2017. THE M AIN APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY APPLICATION IS ALSO FIXED FOR THE S AME DATE 22.05.2017 . IN THE MEANTIME, THE REVENUE WILL NOT FURTHER ATTEM PT TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNT OUT OF THE IMPUGNED DEMAND. 8. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL , THE ITO(E) NAMELY SMT. SUNITA SHARMA APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 22.5.2017 AND INFORMED THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DIRECTIONS REGARDING REFUND OF THE AMOUNT ILLEGALLY RECOVERED HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. HOWEVE R, NO EXPLANATION EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING WAS OFFERED REGARDING T HE ILLEGAL ACT ON THE PART M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 6 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RECOVERING THE TAX DEMA ND DESPITE THE RECOVERY OF DEMAND SPECIFICALLY STAYED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE AS HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO HIS OFFICIAL DUTY ELSEWHERE. THE T RIBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HE ARING. THE CASE WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 7.7.2017. 9. AGAIN ON 7.7.2017, AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE THEN CONCERNED CIT-DR, PRESENT IN THE COURT, NAMELY SHRI SUSHIL KU MAR STATING THAT THE CONCERNED CIT- DR, SHRI RAVI SARANGAL WHO WAS CONVE RSANT WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS ON LEAVE. IN VIEW OF THIS, SINCE T HE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 4.7.2017. THE PARTIES WERE DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN TH E STATUS QUO. ON 4.7.2017, SURPRISINGLY AGAIN, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGH T BY THE DEPARTMENT STATING THAT CONCERNED DR WAS BUSY IN ANOTHER COURT . THE CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED ON THE ORAL REQUEST OF THE DE PARTMENT TO 19.9.2017. THE PARTIES WERE DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO. 10. THEREAFTER ON 19.9.2017, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNC TION. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE INCHARGE SENIOR MEMBER, THE CASE WAS ADJOURN ED TO 21.9.2017. 11. ON 21.9.2017, THE LD. SR. DR FILED WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS RUNNING INTO 14 PAG ES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT HE MAY BE GIVEN TIME TO GO THROUGH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.10.2017 A LONG WITH STAY APPLICATION AND THE STATUS QUO WAS DIRECTED TO BE M AINTAINED. ON 24.10.2017, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGA IN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.12.2017. M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 7 HOWEVER, ON 21.12.2017, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND FINALLY THE CASE WAS HEARD ON 23.3.2018. 12. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOVED TH E PRESENT APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF EX-PARTE STAY ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017. HOWEVER, THE REGISTRY FOUND CERTAIN DEFECTS IN THE SAID M.A. ANDULTIMATELY THE M.A. WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.3.2018. AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE, THE MAIN APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY APPLICATION HAD ALREADY BEEN HEARD ON 22.03.2018 FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. AS OBSERVED ABOVE, N O ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES ON THE STAY APPLICA TION AS STAY APPLICATION WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 13. AS NOTED FROM THE NARRATED FACTS ABOVE, THE STA Y APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER HEARD ON MERITS BECAUSE O F FREQUENT ADJOURNMENTS SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT EXCEPT ONCE I .E. ON 21.9.2017, WHEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FILED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO GO THROUGH T HE SAME OR ON 21.12.2017, WHEN THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. SINC E, ON THE DATES FIXED, THE LD. DR WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ARGUMENTS HENCE, A T THE ORAL REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE LIKELY CONSEQUENCES TO THE ASSESSEE OF ANY COERCIVE RECOVE RY OF THE DEMAND BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS FELT JUST AND PRUDENT TO GRA NT INTERIM STAY AND DIRECT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HE ARING. THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.2.2017 WAS OPERATIVE TILL TH E NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 15.4.2017. HOWEVER, THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OF FICER IN COMPLETE DISREGARD AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL DESPITE KNOWLEDGE M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 8 OF THE STAY ORDER AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN OUR ORD ER DATED 28.4.2017, ILLEGALLY RECOVERED THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 22.5.2017, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INFORMED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFUNDED AND THAT THE PARTIES WERE DIRECTED TO MAIN TAIN STATUS QUO TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. 14. NOW IN THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR VACATION OF ORDERS DATED 28.4.2017 AND 15.2.2017, I T HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HERSELF IN THIS CASE HAD PASSED A VERY WELL- REASONED ORDER WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND WELL-REA SONED ORDER DISCUSSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE STAYING THE RECOVERY OF THE DEMAND HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER WHICH IS A TOTALLY NON-REASONED O RDER AND IS CONTRARY TO THE WELL SETTLED LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE V ACATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY HER ACT OF VIOLATION O F THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL STATING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE LIKE THE STAY ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 PASSED BY THE BENCH, THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ATTACHED ON 17.2.2017 AND THE OUTSTAND ING DEMAND OF RS.29,08,230/- WAS RECOVERED. HOWEVER, NO AVERMENT S HAVE BEEN MADE AS TO THE REASONS OR JUSTIFICATION NECESSITATING FOR T HE VACATION OF THE INTERIM STAY GRANTED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.2.2017, WHICH OTH ERWISE HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED AND DISOBEYED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. E VEN, NO EXPLANATION EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING HAS BEEN OFFERED TILL D ATE AS WAS DIRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.4.2017 REGARDING THE ILLEGAL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 9 OFFICER IN RECOVERING THE TAX DEMAND DESPITE THE RE COVERY OF DEMAND SPECIFICALLY STAYED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 15. AS NOTED ABOVE, ON EACH AND EVERY DATE OF HEARI NG, FRESH ORDERS FOR MAINTAINING STATUS QUO WERE PASSED. IN VIEW OF THIS , SINCE THE PERIOD OF OPERATION OF THE ORDERS HAS ALREADY PASSED/ HAS BEC OME A PAST, WE WILL BE ASTONISHED TO KNOW HOW THE VACATION OF THE STAY ORD ER DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 THE PERIOD OF OPERATION OF WHICH WAS UPTO 4.5.2017 AND 22.5.2017 RESPECTIVELY, AT THIS STAGE, WILL IN ANY MANNER OF ANY HELP TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE VACATION OF ORDER DATED 15.2.2017 O R OF 28.4.2017 AT THIS STAGE WILL NOT ABSOLVE THE CONCERNED OFFICER/S OF T HEIR ACT OF VIOLATION OF ORDER DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE ORDER. WE HAVE NOT COME ACROSS WITH ANY CASE LAW LAYING DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT INTER IM STAY ORDERS CAN BE VACATED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. WE DO NOT KNOW, IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS DEVISED SOME TIME MACHINE TO CALL BACK THE PAST TIM E BETWEEN THE PERIOD 15.2.2017 AND 5.4.2017 OR BETWEEN THE PERIOD FROM 28.4.2017 AND 22.5.2017 AND THEN MAKE RECOVERY OF THE IMPUGNED DE MAND AND THEN AGAIN SWITCH ON TO THE PRESENT DATE. ANOTHER GRIEVANCE PU T BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING VE RY LATE DUE TO CERTAIN OBJECTIONS PUT BY THE REGISTRY. SUPPOSE THE PRESENT APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE DATE OF ITS FILING ITSELF I.E. ON 14.1.2018, EVEN THEN THE REVENUE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE ANY RECOVE RY ON ACCOUNT OF VACATION OF STAY GRANTED VIDE ORDERS DATED 15.2.201 7 AND 28.4.2017 AS THE SAID ORDERS HAVE BEEN FURTHER SUPERSEDED /MERGED IN TO SUBSEQUENT ORDERS WHEREBY FRESH DIRECTIONS FOR STAY/MAINTAINING OF ST ATUS QUO WERE GRANTED. EVEN THE ORDERS DATED 15.2.2017 AND 28.4.2017 HAVE NOT BEEN CONTINUED AS M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 10 SUCH RATHER THE SUBSEQUENT STAY ORDERS WERE PASSED IN VIEW OF SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS / CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS RECO VERY OF THE AMOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN VIOLATION OF STAY ORDER DATED 15. 2.2017 AND THEREAFTER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTING FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DATED 28.4.2017 AND THEREAFTER THE STATUS QUO ORDER AFTER THE STATE MENT OF THE AO THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO I N VIEW OF THE RELUCTANCEOF THE CONCERNED DRS IN ARGUING THE MATTE R AND SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS. 16. THERE IS ANOTHER INTERESTING FACT COMING OUT OF THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HER APPLICATION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 20.2.2018 HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS DATE S OF HEARINGS STATING THAT SHE WAS WAITING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE MISC. APPLI CATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2. 2017. THIS SHOWS THAT THE CONCERNED ITO (E) WAS AWARE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER S OF STAY/STATUS QUO, THEN WHY THE APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF TWO ORDERS ONLY HAS BEEN FILED IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. 17. THE CRUX OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION IS THAT THE DE PARTMENT OFFICIALS FULLY KNOWING THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED EITHER BY MOVING THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND EVEN KNOWING THAT THE PRESE NT APPLICATION WAS INFRUCTUOUS AND NON-MAINTAINABLEEVEN ON THE DATE OF ITS FILING, NOT ONLY FILED THIS APPLICATION, BUT ALSO INSISTED FOR ARGUM ENTS DESPITE THAT THE HEARING ON THE MAIN APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN CONCLUD ED ON A PREVIOUS DATE. THE ONLY MOTIVE BEHIND THIS APPLICATION IS TO CONFR ONT AND SHOW RESENTMENT AND DISPLEASURE TO THIS TRIBUNAL FOR GRANTING INTER IM STAY AGAINST RECOVERY IN THIS MATTER. M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 11 18. THE WORDING OF THE OPENING PART OF THE APPLICAT ION FOR VACATION OF STAY CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS SHOWIN G HER RESENTMENT NOT ONLY ABOUT THE PASSING OF EX-PARTE INTERIM STAY ORD ER BUT ALSO TOWARDS THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR DIRECTING HER TO REF UND THE AMOUNT ILLEGALLY RECOVERED. 19. AT THIS STAGE, WE ARE PAINED TO NOTE THAT THAT THE DEPARTMENT, IN CASE IT IS AGGRIEVED OF ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL , INSTEAD OF APPROACHING THE HIGHER FORUM/ HONBLE HIGH OR THE HONBLE APEX COURT, HAS NOW A DAYS CHOSEN THE COURSE OF SHOWING OPEN DEFIANCE OF, DISR ESPECT OF OR OF OPEN RESENTMENT TO ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH MAY PRO VE BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR THE SANCTITY OF THE COURTS OF LAW/JUSTICE DISPE NSATION SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY. OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE IN VIEW OF THE SOME OTHER CASES ALSO WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS EITHER VIOLATED THE STAY ORDERS OR COME WITH APPLICATIONS FOR VACATION OF STAY ORDERS DESPITE TH E FACT THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF MAKING REQ UESTS FOR ADJOURNMENTS. WHEN BEING ASKED, THE ONLY EXPLANATION COMES THAT A S 31 ST MARCH IS APPROACHING, THEY HAVE TO ACHIEVE THEIR TARGETS OF THE TAX COLLECTION. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CAUTION THE CONCERNED OFFICERS T HAT THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT OF OPEN RESENTMENT AGAINST THE JUDICIAL ORDERS MAY ALSO COMPEL US TO INITIATE AND RECOMMEND TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FO R APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 20. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHOSEN TO FILE AND CONTEST THE PRESE T APPLICATION FULLY KNOWING THAT THE SAME IS FRIVOLOUS, INFRUCTUOUS, NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IN M.A NO.37/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1382/CHD/2016 CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION 12 FACT REDUNDANT WITH THE ONLY MOTIVE TO OPENLY SHOW RESENTMENT AGAINST THE PASSING OF STAY ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL, INSTEAD OF CHALLENGING THE SAME BEFORE THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. THIS APPLIC ATION IS THEREFORE DISMISSED WITH COSTS OF RS. 20,000/- TO BE DEPOSITE D IN PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY O F THIS ORDER. WHILE ORDERING SO, WE ARE CAUTIOUS THAT IT WILL NOT RESUL T INTO ANY LOSS TO THE GOVT. EXCHEQUER BUT THE MOVEMENT OF SOME FUNDS FROM ONE B RANCH OF THE GOVT. TO THE OTHER PERHAPS WILL CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF CAU TION TO THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, KEEPING JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, NO CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENDED AT THIS STAGE. 21. NOW TO COME UP FOR SHOWING/ FURNISHING EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE OF THE ABOVE ORDERS ON 4.5.2018. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.04.2018 SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.04.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR