M/s Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali V. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

MA 70/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6577 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR RANJIT KAUR DCIT C
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 70/CHD/2018 IN STAY APPLICATION NO. L8/CHD/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VS. TH E DCIT, ROOM NO. 243, 2 ND FLOOR, CIRCLE-6, PUDA BHAWAN, MOHALI SECTOR 62, MOHALI PAN NO. AAALG0872G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : DR. RANJIT KAUR, DCIT, C-6(1) DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09. 05.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE PLEADING THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORD ER DATED 20.12.2017 HAD STAYED THE RECOVERY OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE REC OVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10, YET THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECOVERED THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE REFUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER PLEADED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO DIRECTED IN THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 TO REFUND RS. 50 LACS RECOVERED TO THE DEBTOR OF T HE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONGLY RECOVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 2 THE ACTION OF THE LD. ACIT IN THIS RESPECT IS TOTAL LY WRONG & ILLEGAL AND FURTHER THAT SHE MAY BE DIRECTED TO REFUND THE AMOU NT RECOVERED ILLEGALLY FROM THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF ORDER DATED 20.12 .2017. 2. BEFORE FURTHER PROCEEDING, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISC USS HERE A FEW FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE MISC. PETITION. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE STAY APPLICATION NO.18/CHD/2017 RELEVANT TO ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017 IN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SEEKING STAY OF RECOVER Y OF THE OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE STAY APPLICATION THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD WRONGLY A ND ILLEGALLY RECOVERED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM THE APPLICANTASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR FILING THE APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FURTHER CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED DURING PEN DENCY OF THE APPEAL / STAY APPLICATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE SAID ST AY APPLICATION HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2 0.12.2017. THE RELEVANT FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER DA TED 20.12.2017, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 5. FROM THE ABOVE PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES AND ALS O FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE BEFORE US:- (I) CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2009-10 AND THEREBY TAX DEMAND OF RS. 633912410/- HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II) BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEA L BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). (III) IN THE MEANTIME THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 10 CRORES OUT OF THE TAX DEMAND VIDE CHALLAN M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 3 NO.00004 DATED 1.3.2017 AND MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF RECOVERY OF REMAINING DEMAND OF TAX AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1914(SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE APPLICATION AND STAYED THE REMAINING TAX DEMAND TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24.03.2017. (IV) THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2017, HOWEVER, THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS DISPATCHED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 6.11.2017, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9.11.2017. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SAID PASSING OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TILL THE RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE SAME ON 9.11.2017. (V) THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MEANTIME, ON 2.11.2017, MADE COERCIVE RECOVERIES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 CRORES TOWARDS THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR AY 2009-10, BY ATTACHING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 2.11.2017. (VI) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE CIT(A) ON 17.10.2017, THE ASSESSEE PRESUMED THAT THE RECOVERY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VACATING THE STAY ORDER DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). (VII) THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID RECOVERY AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE OPERATION OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9.11.2017 ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNT ASSESSED AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER, BINDING THE PETITIONER TO A SCHEDULE. (VIII) IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 17.10.2017 AND MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT STATING THEREIN THAT SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 9.11.2017, WHICH M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 4 HAS BEEN ASSAILED BEFORE THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH AND THAT AN APPLICATION FOR STAY HAS ALSO BEEN FILED THERE; HENCE, THE AFORESAID WRIT PETITI ON ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REQUEST ALLOWED THE APPLICATION AND DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN. (IX) SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, A TAX DEMAND OF RS. 25.35 CRORES WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 30.80 CORES BEING 15% OF THE TAX DEMAND AND THE REMAINING TAX DEMAND WAS STAYED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TILL THE PENDENCY O F THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WAS ALSO DEC IDED BY CIT(A) ON 17.10.2017 AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER W AS DISPATCHED ON 6.11.2017 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 9.11.2017. ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED APPEAL AGAINS T THE SAID ORDER ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR STAY OF RECOVERY B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL AND ST AY APPLICATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE COERCIVE RECOVERY OF RS. 5.85 CRORES ON 20.11.2017 AND ANOTHER RECOVERY OF RS. 7.85 CORES ON 22.11.2017, THE DATE ON WHICH THE STAY APPLICATION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECOVERED A SUM OF RS. 50 LA CS FROM THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE TRIBUNAL STRONGLY DEPRECIATED THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ILLEGALLY RECOVERING THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE REVENUE OFFICIALS IN THIS CASE WAS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE. THAT THE CANONS OF LAW, JUSTICE AND ETHICS HAVE BEEN BROKEN DOWN BY THE OFFICIALS O F THE DEPARTMENT AND AN EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW INOPERATIVE, DEBARRING THE PETITIONER FROM AVAILING ANY REMEDY F ROM THE HIGHER FORUM. M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 5 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 20 .12.2017 PASSED IN STAY APPLICATION NO. 18/CHD/2017 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 7. NOW, WE PROCEED TO PASS THE DETAILED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE LENGTHY ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THA T ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACTED IN THIS CASE IN THE MANNER SH E WAS SUPPOSED TO ACT BEING A QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER. TAK ING UNDUE BENEFIT FROM THE PROCEDURAL LACUNAS, SEQUENCE OF EV ENTS HAD BEEN SO MANAGED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PERIOD FALLING IN BETWEEN THE DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE SAME BY THE PETITIONER/ASSESSEE, THEREBY CREATI NG SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEREBY, PUTTING THE ASSESSEE IN A H ELPLESS CONDITION AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS HELPLESSNESS BY WAY OF ATTACHING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITH DRAWING THE MONEY THEREFROM, BEFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD RECE IVE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND APPROACH TO THE HIGHER FORU M FOR STAY OF THE OPERATION OF THE SAID ORDER AND THEREBY FORECLOSING THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UN DER THE ACT AND RENDERING THE ASSESSEE HELPLESS AND REMEDIL ESS. 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 APPLICATIO N BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DE MONSTRATES THAT SHE WANTED TO PREEMPT THE TRIBUNAL FROM DEALIN G WITH THE STAY APPLICATION WHICH WAS SCHEDULED FOR HEARIN G ON NOVEMBER 22, 2017. THE ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE REVE NUE OFFICIALS IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL CONS CIENCE. 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, DEBAR RING THE PETITIONER FROM AVAILING ANY REMEDY FROM THE HIGHER FORUM. 8. THE ANOTHER SHOCKING FACT WHICH EMERGED DURING T HE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS IS THAT WHEN A QUESTION WAS RAI SED TO THE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AS TO HOW THE DEPARTMENT CAME INTO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PRIOR TO 06.11 .2017 WHEN THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS DISPATCHED TO THE ASS ESSEE BY THE OFFICE OF CIT(A)? NONE OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT COULD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN ABOUT IT. E VEN THEY COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY INFORM AS TO ON WHICH DATE THE OFFICE OF THE AO RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 6 CIT(A). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT REMAINS UNEXPLAI NED AS TO HOW THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DECISION OF TH E APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, PROMPTING HER TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESS EE, THAT TOO BY WAY OF COERCIVE MEANS AND WITHOUT SHOW CAUSI NG THE ASSESSEE OR GIVING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPROACH TO THE HIGHER FORUM. THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PENDING BEFORE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WILL BE D ECIDED IN DECEMBER 2017 RAISING DEMAND, ON SIMILAR LINES AS PER ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2013-14 CAN A LSO BE NOT APPRECIATED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE MATTER FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL 9. ANOTHER CONTENTION AT THIS STAGE HAS BEEN RAISED THAT THE COERCIVE RECOVERY OF RS5.85 CRORES AND RS.7.58 CRORES TOWARDS OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR AY -2013-14 WAS MADE ON 20.11. 2017 AND 22.11.2017; THAT THE STAY APPLICATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 17.11.201 7, BUT NO ORDER FOR STAY OF RECOVERY WAS PASSED ON THE SAID D ATE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 22.11.2017. HENCE, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT PASSED ANY STAY ORDER, THE DEPARTMENT WAS W ITHIN ITS RIGHT TO EXECUTE THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT. NO DOUB T, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 17.11. 2017 BUT THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.11.2017 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE PETITIONER ON THE SAID DATE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHEREBY THE OPE RATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN STAYED SUBJECT TO TH E CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL ABIDE BY THE TERM S AND CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY QUA THE DEMAND OF THE AMOUNT ASSESSED AS HAS BEEN D ONE IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER BINDING THE PETITIONER TO A SCHE DULE. THE PETITIONER FURTHER INFORMED THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT WAS APPROACHED BY WAY OF WRIT UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STAY HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED OR VACATE D BY THE AO EVEN DESPITE DEPOSIT OF 15% OF THE DISPUTED DEMA ND AS PER CBDTS CIRCULAR NO.1914 (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, ADJOURNED THE MATTER TO M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 7 22.11.2017 ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO APPRISE ABOUT T HE TRUE FACTS TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND IF THE ASSESSEE SO DESIRE, TO WITHDRAW THE WRIT PETITION. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDI ATELY MOVED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WITH AN APPLICATION FO R WITHDRAWAL OF THE WRIT PETITION IN VIEW OF SUBSEQUE NT DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2017. WE MAY MENTION HERE TH AT TILL 22.11.2017, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T STAYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO WERE IN FORCE. MOREOVE R, IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THE UNDUE HASTE HAS BE EN MADE WHEN THE MATTER WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE TRIB UNAL AS WELL OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 10. ANOTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE AMOUNT RECOVERED ON 20.11.2017 AND 22.11.2017 WAS APPROPRI ATED TOWARDS THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR AY 2013-14 AND T HAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS FOR AY 2009-10. WE ARE AGAIN NOT CONVINCED AT THIS ARGUMENT ALSO. THE RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT HAS THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR INVO LVING SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WAS DECIDED B Y THE CIT(A) ON THE SAME DATE AS FOR AY 2013-14 AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PA RT OF THE AO TO MAKE HASTE IN COERCIVE RECOVERY FOR AY 2013-1 4, THAT TOO, ON 22.11.2017 ITSELF WHEN THE MATTER WAS FIXED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING ON THE STAY APPLICATION. AT THE MOST, THE AO COULD HAVE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS. NO JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN OFFERED AS TO W HY THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY ADOPTED THE COURSE OF COERCIVE RECOVERY WITHOUT ASKING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT OR SHOW CAUSING IT AS TO WHY THE COERCIVE RECOVERY BE NOT E FFECTED? IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PETITIONER AL SO IS A GOVT. BODY AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT IT HAS EVER DE FAULTED IN PAYMENT OF TAXES. THERE WAS NOT ANY LIKELIHOOD OF T HE PETITIONER OF ESCAPING FORM THE TAX LIABILITIES. T HE PETITIONER WAS ONLY AVAILING THE LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO I T UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 11. ANOTHER MERITLESS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT S INCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008- 09 WAS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE V IDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.1.2017, AND HENCE, ALL / ANY STAY OR DER GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2013-14 M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 8 STOOD DEEMED TO BE VACATED. SHOCKINGLY, THE STAY OR DER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PRES ENT ASSESSING OFFICER ON 24.3.2017 I.E. AFTER PASSING O F THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON 30.1.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY STAYED THE RECOVERY OF DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2017 WHICH WAS FURTHER EXTENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WELL REPRESENTED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THROUGH DR AND THE DEPARTMENT WAS WELL AWARE OF THE STAY GRANTED BY TH E TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ALSO. THE MOR E SHOCKING FACT IS THAT THE COERCIVE MEASURE HAS BEEN MADE WHEN EVEN THE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAVE ALREADY BEEN HEARD ON AND THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS. 12. ANOTHER ARGUMENT MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT , IN FACT, NO STAY ORDER HAS EVER BEEN PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ; THAT THE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PRODUCED ON THE FILE BY THE ASSESSEE IS FORGED AND FICTITIOUS. WHEN THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER HE ARING THE AFORESAID CONTENTION, PROPOSED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES FOR VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHER T HE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORGED AND FICTITIOUS, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT AROSE AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE STAY ORDER EVENTUALLY HAS BEEN PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THAT THE SAME WAS NOT IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF RECOVERY ON 2.11.2017 AFTER PASSING THE ORDER O N THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY CIT(A) ON 17.10.2017. F ROM THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT COME WITH ANY DEFINITE STAND AND THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TWISTED AS P ER WHIMS AND WISHES OF THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS AND COERCI VE RECOVERY HAS BEEN EFFECTED IN AN UNDUE HASTE, VIOLA TING ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND NATURAL J USTICE. IN THE SOMEWHAT IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTR A HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MHADA) VS ADIT (EXEMPTIONS) [2014] 66 SOT 66 (MUMBAI)/ URO / 49 TAXMAN.COM 341 (TRIB), WHEREIN COERCIVE MEASURE WAS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE (MHADA) AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BU T PRIOR TO THE HEARING OF THE STAY APPLICATION BY THE TRIBU NAL, THE COORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVE D THAT ITO BEING A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD OBSERVE THE M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 9 PARAMETERS WHICH ARE LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURTS I N VARIOUS DECISIONS. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UTI MUTUAL FUNDS VS. ITO (2012) 19 TAXMAN.COM 250/345 ITR 71 (BOM.), OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RPG ENTERPRISES LTD VS. DCIT (2002) 74 TT J (MUMBAI) 391 AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. JCIT (2002) 81 ITD 299 (MUMB AI) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES HAD MISUSED HIS POWERS AND THE ACTION OF THE RECOVE RY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS GROSS VIOLATI ON OF THE DIRECTIONS AND JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES AS WELL AS THE B ASIC RULE OF LAW AND PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DIRECTED TO REFUND THE ENTIRE DEMAND, COERCIVELY RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTM ENT CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 4.2.2014 IN DIT VS INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 361 ITR 469 (BOM) UPHELD THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVING THAT THE ACTION OF THE COERCIVE RECOVERY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AGAINST THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL OF RUL E OF LAW. THAT THE STATE IS EXPECTED TO ACT FAIRLY. THE UNDUE HASTE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RECOVERING THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO THE BINDING DECISION OF TH E COURT BUT ALSO SHOCKING TO THE JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE. THE E NTIRE ACTION WAS DIRECTED AT RENDERING THE TRIBUNAL AND T HE ASSESSEE HELPLESS SO THAT NO RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT BE SILENT SPE CTATOR OF THE ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO FRUSTRATE THE LEGAL PROCESS PROVID ED UNDER THE ACT. THE GRANT OF REFUND OF THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEE N COERCIVELY RECOVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN THE E XERCISE OF THE TRIBUNALS INHERENT POWERS TO ENSURE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT LEFT HIGH AND DRY ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL AND HIGHHANDED ACTIONS ON THE PART OF REVENUE AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 13. THOUGH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGH T OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE FOR SEEKING REFUND OF THE AMOUNT COERCIVELY RECOVERED BY THE DE PARTMENT, HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THIS S TAGE HAS RESTRICTED HIS CLAIM ONLY QUA THE REFUND OF THE AMO UNT COLLECTED FROM THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSESSE AND FURTHE R RELIEF FOR THE STAY OF THE RECOVERY OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF T AX DEMAND M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 10 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2013- 14 HAS BEEN SOUGHT. 14. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S.50 LAKH HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSE SSEE TOWARDS TAX DEMAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE AL READY ORDERED FOR THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM THE DEBTOR VIDE OUR INTERIM DIRECTIONS DATED 29.11.2017 (AS REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER). THE SAID DIRECTIONS ARE REAFFIRMED. SO FAR AS THE STAY OF TH E RECOVERY OF REMAINING PART OF THE TAX DEMAND AND INTEREST TH EREUPON IS CONCERNED, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LOCAL BODY ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND PLOTS, MAKING THE SAME AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IS IN THE NEED OF FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL LIABILITIES AS IT HA S RAISED SUBSTANTIAL LOANS FROM THE BANK. FURTHER THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE ON MERITS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY RECOVERED 31% OUT OF THE TOT AL DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ALMOST 70% O F THE DEMAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. HE, THEREFORE, H AS SUBMITTED THAT FURTHER RECOVERY BY THE DEPARTMENT B E STAYED TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. THOUGH, THE LD. D R HAS ADMITTED THAT ALMOST 70% OF THE AMOUNT FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013-14 HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOVERED, HOWEVER, SHE HA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT BE ALLOWED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE OUTSTANDING TOTA L DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SO FA R AS THE DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS CONCERNED, TH E SAME IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS . EVEN RECOVERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS ALREAD Y BEEN STAYED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND EVEN THE APPEAL FOR THE SAID YEAR HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BE EN RESERVED FOR ORDERS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF VACATION OF STAY OR OF ORDERING ANY REC OVERY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AT THIS STAGE. SO FAR AS TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2009-10 AND 2013- 14 ARE CONCERNED, IT IS OWN CIRCULAR OF CBDT WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD STAY RE COVERY BY GETTING DEPOSITED 15% OF THE DISPUTED DEMAND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND, IN FA CT, ADMITTEDLY IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE RECOVERY OF THE D EMAND WAS M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 11 STAYED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECT TO THE DEPO SIT OF 15% OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE P ENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, AS OBSER VED ABOVE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY RECOVERED 31% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ALMOST 70% O F THE DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. FURTHER, TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAND AND PLOT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSIN ESS ACCOMMODATION TO THE RESIDENTS, IN OUR VIEW, NO FUR THER 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 TR IBUNAL WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS OF THE H EARING OF THE APPEALS, IN DEFAULT OF WHICH, THE DEPARTMENT WI LL BE AT LIBERTY TO SEEK VACATION OF STAY. OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE, SHALL HAVE NO BEARING EFFECT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE T REATED AS ALLOWED. 4. THOUGH SEVERE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 AGAINST THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR ILLEGAL AND COERCIVE RECOVERY MADE BY THEM FROM THE ASSESSE E AND FURTHER DESPITE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL STAYING FURTHER RECOVERY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TO REFUND RS. 50 LACS, ILLEGALLY RECOVERED FRO M THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSESSEE AS DIRECTED IN THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS DID NOT BOTHER TO GIVE ANY H EED TO THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND AGAIN IN COMPLETE VIOLAT ION OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RECOVERED / ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16, 50,62,238 VIDE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 13.3.2018. EVEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER FI LED ON 28.2.2018 WHICH WAS NOT ONLY DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MANUALLY BUT M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 12 ALSO THROUGH E.MAIL DATED 9.3.2018 AND FURTHER REMI NDER DATED 12.3.2018 OBJECTING AGAINST THE ADJUSTMENT OF REFUND FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION I.E. 2009-10 AND ALSO APPRISING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE STAY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE RECOVERY OF THE DEMAND. THE TR IBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PASSED THE FOL LOWING ORDER DATED 23.3.2018:- 23.03.2018 M.A.NO. 70/CHD/2018 GREATER MOHALL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI VS. DCIT PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE: SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE PRESENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SMT. CHANDERKANTA, ADDL. CIT HEARD THE MISC. PETITION. THE ASSESSEE-APPLICANT HA S PLEADED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2 017 HAD STAYED RECOVERY OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMIT TED THAT DESPITE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017, THE DEPART MENT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS AND HAS RECO VERED THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE, IN THIS RE SPECT HAS RELIED ON THE PAPER BOOK PAGES 37 & 38 WHICH I S A COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIO NED THAT THE OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE REFUND DUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE , HAS PLEADED THAT THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIR ECTED NOT TO ADJUST THE REFUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER POINTED OUT IN THE APPLICATION THAT EV EN THE OTHER DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTING TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFUND RS. 50 LACS RECOVERED F ROM THE M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 13 DEBTOR HAS ALSO NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THE LD. COU NSEL, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROPRIATE ACTIO N BE TAKEN / DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED IN THIS RESPECT TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS MOVED AN ADJOURN MENT LETTER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT HEAVY QUANTU M IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND THAT THE CASE IS VERY SENS ITIVE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT GRAVE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAIS ED IN THE PETITION AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEE N SOUGHT IN THIS RESPECT. SHE, THEREFORE, HAS REQUEST ED THAT 15 DAYS TIME MAY BE GRANTED TO THE DEPARTMENT TO FI LE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER ARGUED BY HER THAT THE NOTICE CANNOT TAKEN OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.20 18 WRITTEN BY DR. RANJIT KAUR, DCIT CIRCLE 6(1) MOHALI , WHO IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE REFUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR 2009-10 . THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE CHAL LAN OR OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADJUSTED THE REFUND. THAT THE ACTION CA NNOT BE TAKEN ON THE MERE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SHE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO THE AVERMENTS MADE IN APPLI CATION. ANOTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATIONIS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT DOES NOTSPEAK OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE ORDER. THAT THERE WAS AN ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 5.12.2017, WHEREAS, THIS TRIBUNAL SUBSEQUENTLY HAS PASSED THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017. THAT IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENFORCEABLE. FURTHER, THAT THE PRE SENT MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AT THIS STAGE . 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT I S NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 HAS NOTICED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALRE ADY RECOVERED 31% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ESPECIALLY THE DEVELOPMEN T ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FURTHER RE COVERY OF THE DEMAND HAS BEEN STAYED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO RE-AFFIRMED ITS M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 14 DIRECTIONS GIVEN ON 29.11.2017, DIRECTING THE DEPAR TMENT TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LAKHS COLLECTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT FROM THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW IN THIS PETITION, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE DEPARTM ENT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FO R REFUND OF THE AMOUNT TO THE DEBTOR ALSO AND FURTHER THAT I N COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECOVERED THE REMAINING AMOUN T FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS MOVED TH E PRESENT APPLICATION. 4. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THIS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WE ARE NOT IN AGRE EMENT WITH THE ABOVE CONTENTION. IF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS JUR ISDICTION TO PASS AN ORDER, DIRECTING FOR STAY OF RECOVERY OF THE DEMAND, THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO HAS GOT THE INHERENT POW ER FOR ENTERTAINING AND ADJUDICATING APPLICATION FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER / DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY IT. FURTHER, IF ANY CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE TAK EN / RECOMMENDED AGAINST ANY PARTY TO THE LITIGATION / O FFICIAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT HAV E ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AFTER HEARING SUCH APPLIC ATION MOVED BY EITHER PARTY. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE HOLD THA T APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINABLE. 5. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO FORCE OF LAW, THE SAID ARGUMENT, IN OUR VIEW , IS NOT TENABLE, RATHER THE ARGUMENT TAKEN IN THIS RESPECT SHOW THE UNWILLINGNESS, DISRESPECTFUL AND OBJECTIONABLE ATTITUDE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ORDERS OF THE TR IBUNAL. IF THE DEPARTMENT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER / ANY DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017, THE PROPER COURSE WAS TO APPROACH THE H IGHER JUDICIAL FORUM / HON'BLE HIGH COURT, BUT TO SAY THA T THE ORDER CANNOT BE ENFORCED IS AN ACT WHICH DOES NOT B EHOVE TO THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT. SO FAR AS TH E SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE PASSING ANY ADVERSE ORDER, OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ABOVE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE LD. DR. LET THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER BE SUMMONED AND SHE BE HEARD AS TO WHY THE CONTEMPT O F COURT PROCEEDINGS BE NOT INITIATED / RECOMMENDED AGAINST HER FOR VIOLATING / DISRESPECTING THE ORDER S OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER WHY THE APPROPRIATE COSTS BE N OT IMPOSED AND REASONABLE DAMAGES BE NOT AWARDED TO TH E M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 15 ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT AND AS TO WHY THE SAME BE NOT RECOVERED FROM THE SALARY OF THE CONCERNED RESPONSI BLE OFFICER / OFFICERS. 6. LET THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL A S THE OTHER CONCERNED OFFICERS WHO HAVE EITHER PART OF TH E EXECUTION OF RECOVERY OR HAVE APPROVED THE RECOVERY / ADJUSTMENT OF REFUND DESPITE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL DATED 20.12.2017 COME AND EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION ON 6.4.2018 . COPY OF THE ORDER BE SUPPLIED TO THE LD. DR SO THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONVEYED FURTHER TO THE CONCER NED OFFICER/S. 5. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NAMELY DR. RANJIT KAUR, DCIT AND THE ADDITIONAL CIT NAMELY SHRI KULT EJ SINGH BAINS, WHO APPROVED THE AFORESAID PROPOSAL FOR ADJUSTMENT OF R EFUND APPEARED IN PERSON ON 6.4.2018 AND TENDERED APOLOGY LETTER. HOW EVER, WHEN THIS TRIBUNAL ENQUIRED AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT ILLEGALL Y RECOVERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 HAS BEEN REFUNDE D TO THE ASSESSEE, THEY ANSWERED IN NEGATIVE, AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS A DJOURNED TO 10.4.2018 FOR SUBMITTING REPORT BY THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS RE GARDING REFUND OF THE AMOUNT ILLEGALLY RECOVERED AND ALSO EXPLANATION OF THE CONCERNED OFFICIAL REGARDING THEIR ILLEGAL ACTS OF RECOVERY. THEREAFTE R ON 10.4.2018, THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS NAMELY DR. RANJIT KAUR, JCIT A ND SHRI KULTEJ SINGH BAINS, ADDL. CIT APPEARED AND SUBMITTED A LETTER D ATED 10.4.2018 STATING THEREIN THAT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUED REFUND OF THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED AGAINST TH E OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.E. AS AMOUNT OF RS. 1633955420/- VIDE REFUND ORDER / CHEQUE NO. 257211 DATED 9.4.2018. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS TENDER AN UNCONDITIONA L APOLOGY FOR THEIR ACT AND FURTHER UNDERTAKE TO COMPLY WITH THE ANY FURTHE R ORDERS / DIRECTIONS M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 16 GIVEN BY THE BENCH. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER REQUESTED T HAT THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS BE DROP PED. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE - APPLICANT HAS ALSO A DMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT ILLEGALLY RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN REFUNDED. 6. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT FIT TO MEN TION HERE THAT DESPITE SEVERE STRUCTURES AND DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AG AINST THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2017, WHICH WAS NOT ONLY VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF NOT ONLY OF THE CONCERNED OFFIC IALS WHO HAD DONE THE COERCIVE ACT OF RECOVERY FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO TO THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE CONCERNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX HERSELF HAD COME PRESENT TO ARGUE THE MATTER IN THE STAY APPLICATION ON 29.11.2017 ALONGWITH DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES A ND THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER LEADING TO ORDER DATED 20.12.2107 . UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ILLEGAL R ECOVERY, EVEN DESPITE STRICT DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER OFFICIALS. IT IS PAINFU L TO NOTE HERE THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR TA RGETS AT THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. BY 31 ST MARCH OF THE YEAR, NOT ONLY ARE TEMPTED TO IGNORE THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND NATURAL JUSTICE BUT CROSS THEIR JURISDICTIONAL / AUTHORITATIVE LIMITS, IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE DIRECTIONS / ORDERS ISSUED BY THEIR HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS I.E THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ADDL. CIT, IN OUR VIEW, ARE NOT SO I GNORANT OR INNOCENT TO UNDERSTAND THE LIKELY CONSEQUENCES WHICH THEY MAY HAVE TO FACE IN PROCEEDING ILLEGALLY TO MAKE COERCIVE RECOVERY IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR HIGHER COURTS BUT THEY, IN OUR VIEW, ARE SO MUCH M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 17 PRESSURISED BY THE HIGHER OFFICIALS TO DO SO AND TH EY HAVE TO CHOOSE THE LESSER RISKY OPTION OUT OF THE TWO I.E. EITHER TO F ACE THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION / DIRE OF THEIR SENIOR OFFICERS FOR NOT ACHIEVING T HE TARGETS OR TO FACE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, LIKELY TO BE INITIATE D BY THE COURTS OF LAW FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR ORDERS, AND INTERESTINGLY, THEY CONVENIENTLY CHOOSE THE LATER OPTION BECAUSE PERHAPS THEY THINK THAT COURT S / HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WILL NOT OPT FOR STRICT VIEW IN CASE TH E AMOUNT COERCIVELY RECOVERED IS REFUNDED AFTER PASSING OF THE CUTOFF DATE I.E. 31 ST MARCH, AND AN APOLOGY TENDERED TO THE COURT / HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THEY ALSO KNOW THAT THAT EVEN SUCH A SITUATION OF REFUND OR APOLOG Y COULD OCCUR ONLY IN CASE THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE WOULD CHOOSE TO CONTEST SUCH ILLEGAL RECOVERY. OUR ABOVE VIEW IS NOT ONLY BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS C ASE, BUT WE HAVE COME ACROSS WITH THESE TYPE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I N OTHER CASES ALSO. THIS TYPE OF PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN OUR VIEW, MAY LEAD TO SEVERE CONSEQUENCES AFFECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTIC E. IT IS RIGHT TIME FOR THE DEPARTMENT / CBDT TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS IN THIS R ESPECT. 7. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS ON MERITS, AS OBSERVED A BOVE, SINCE THE AMOUNT RECOVERED ILLEGALLY DURING THE STAY APPLICAT ION HAS BEEN REFUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE IS NO MORE AGGRIEVED; FURTHER THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS HAVE ALS O TENDERED UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY AND ALSO IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE A BOVE THAT THESE LOWER RANK DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS HAVE TO SUCCUMB TO THE P RESSURE OF THEIR HIGHER UPS FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR SERVICE / CAREER, WE ACCE PT THE UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY TENDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDL. CIT. M.A NO.70/CHD/ 2018 IN STAY APP 18/CHD/2017 ( ITA NO. 1560/CHD/2017) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI 18 WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE PRESENT MISC. APPL ICATION IS DISPOSED OF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.05.2018 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09.05.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR