KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT
FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT & AMP; ORS
DATED : 23.02.2017
FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT & AMP; ORS
DATED : 23.02.2017
Summarised
Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
In the facts of above case
also huge demands were raised by the Assessing Officer and he had directed the
assessee to make payment of 15% of disputed demand. The assessee approached the
Pr. Commissioner. He also confirmed the order of Asst. Commissioner and
directed the assessee to deposit 15% of total disputed demand. Against the
orders of ACIT as well as of Pr. CIT, writ petitions were filed before the
Hon’ble High Court. Years involved in the writ petitions were A.Yrs. 2014-15,
2015-16. On the same issue appeals for A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2013-14 were also
pending before CIT(A).
The contention of the
assessee company was that it was suffering losses from A.Y. 2011-12 when it had
commenced business in India and, therefore, it is not in a position to make
payment of huge demands raised against it.
The Hon’ble High Court after
referring to the Instructions of CBDT including Circular dated 29.02.2016
wherein directions have been given to the Assessing Officers to keep the demand
in abeyance on making payment of 15% of demand and it was held that above
Instructions also provide a discretion to the Assessing Officer and to the Pr.
CIT to reduce the amount of payment in the genuine cases.
The Hon’ble High Court also
referred to earlier Instructions No. 1914 dated 02.12.1993 in accordance with
which the Assessing Officer and the Pr. CIT should have considered the merits
of the case. Subsequent Circular dated 29.02.2016 does not override the earlier
Instructions. The Hon’ble Court accordingly held that Pr. CIT had failed to
consider the issue whether assessment orders suffer from being “unreasonable
high pitched” or whether “any genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee”
in case the assessee was required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand.
On behalf of the assessee
further request was made to the Hon’ble Court that CIT(A) should be directed to
decide the appeals for A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2013-14 within a limited time frame
and since the issue involved in A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2015-16 is also the same
these appeals can also be disposed of accordingly. The aforesaid prayer was
also opposed by the counsel for the revenue. Hon’ble High Court, however, had
been pleased to pass an order as under:
“20. Mr. K. G. Raghavan, the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has also pleaded before this Court
that another anxiety and the pain of the petitioner is that, despite the fact
that appeals have been filed against the Assessment Order dealing with
Assessment Year 2012-13, and 2013-14, they are still pending before respondent
No.3; the respondent No.3 is yet to decide the appeals. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that the issues in the said appeals are similar to the issues
that have been raised by the petitioner in the present appeals, vis-à-vis,
Assessment Year 2014-15, and 2015-16. Since the legal issues are the same,
since the appeals of the subsequent assessment years can easily be decided if
the appeals of the previous assessment years were to be decided, the learned
Senior Counsel seeks directions from this Court to respondent No.3 to decide
the appeals of the Assessment Year 2012-13, and 2013-14, within a limited time
frame.
21. To this request made by the learned Senior
Counsel, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that respondent No.3 is
over-burdened with large number of appeals to be decided. Therefore, a limited
time frame should not be imposed upon the respondent No.3 by this Court.
Therefore, the learned counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned Senior
Counsel.
22. Needless to say, appeals cannot be kept in
an animated suspension over a long period of time. Keeping any appeal pending
will adversely affect not only the interest of the assessee, but also adversely
affects the interest of the Revenue, and, therefore, of the nation at large.
Thus, it will be in the interest of justice if the appeals filed by the
petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13, and 2013-14 were to be decided as
expeditiously as possible by respondent No.3.”
==============================================
==============================================
Complete Judgement
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT & AMP; ORS
DATED : 23.02.2017
FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ACIT & AMP; ORS
DATED : 23.02.2017
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE
23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Writ Petition
Nos.1339-1342/2017 (T-IT)
Between :
Flipkart
India Private Limited
A
Company incorporated under the
Companies
Act, 1956 and validly existing
under
the Companies Act, 2013
Having
its office at:
Vaishnavi
Summit, No.6/B,
7th
Main, 80 Feet Road,
3rd
Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout,
Bengaluru-560034,
Through
its duly authorized signatory
Mr.
R. Rama Chandra.
....Petitioner
(By
Sri K. G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel for
Sri Arun Sri Kumar, Advocate)
And
:
1.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 3(1) (1),
BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095.
2.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3
BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095.
3.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3
BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095. ...Respondents
(By
Sri K. V. Aravind, Advocate)
These
Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India praying to directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ,
order or direction of like nature to declare the impugned Orders dated
23.11.2016 passed by the Respondent No.1 and
the impugned Order in review dated 04.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 as
null and void and hold it to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and / or
call for, examine the records in relation to and quash the impugned Orders
being illegal and arbitrary.
These
Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in `B' group this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioner has
challenged the order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-A), passed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby the learned Assistant Commissioner has
refused to stay the collection of demand for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and
has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand, amounting to
Rs.3,37,11,514/- by 5.12.2016. The petitioner has also challenged another
order, also dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-B), whereby again the learned Assistant
Commissioner has refused to stay the collection of demand for the Assessment
Year 2015-16, and has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed
demand, amounting to Rs.22,92,02,561/- by 5.12.2016. Lastly, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 25.1.2016, whereby the Prl.Commissioner of Income
Tax (`Prl. CIT' for short), has confirmed the order dated 23.11.2016, passed by
the Assistant Commissioner, and has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of
the total disputed demand amount within one month from the date of receipt of
the order.
2. Briefly the facts of
the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner entered the E-Commerce sector; it
is engaged inter alia in the business of wholesale distribution of books,
mobiles, media, computers, gaming consoles, and other related accessories. The
petitioner submitted its Income Tax Return on 1.10.2014, for the Assessment
Year 2014-15, wherein it declared a loss of Rs.3,58,81,84,343/-. According to
the petitioner, in order to enter the E-commerce sector, and in order to secure
a market, the petitioner is selling the goods at prices lower than the purchase
price. Thus, ever since the beginning of its business in the year 2011, it has
been suffering losses for the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and
also for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
3. On 28.10.2016, the
petitioner's Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was selected for
scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act' for short).
Meanwhile, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed its Income Tax
Return on 10.9.2015, wherein it had declared that again it suffered a loss of
Rs.7,96,34,36,865/-. On 28.10.2016, two separate assessments orders were
passed, namely for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and 2015-16. For the Assessment
Years 2014-15, an amount of Rs.5,01,86,62,282/- was added, whereas, for the
Assessment Year 2015-16, an amount of Rs.12,04,67,98,537/- was added. The
balance tax payable by the petitioner was determined to be Rs.28,94,96,028/-
for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and Rs.1,36,99,99,033/- for the Assessment
Year 2015-16. The petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount within a
period of thirty days.
4. Challenging both the
Assessment Orders, the petitioner filed Appeals before the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) (`CIT (A)' for short). Moreover, while filing the appeals,
it filed two separate applications before the learned Assistant Commissioner
for keeping the demand in abeyance. However, by two orders, dated 23.11.2016,
the respondent No.1, the learned Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner
to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amounting to Rs.3,37,11,514/- for the
Assessment Year 2014-15, and to deposit Rs.22,92,02,561/- for the Assessment
Year 2015-16.
5. Since the petitioner
was aggrieved by both the orders dated 23.11.2016, directing it to deposit 15%
of the disputed demand amount, it filed two Review Petitions before the Prl.
CIT, respondent No.2. However, by orders dated 28.11.2016 and 25.1.2017, the
Prl. CIT has rejected the petitioner's Review Petitions, and has confirmed the
order dated 23.11.2016. Hence these petitions before this Court.
6. Mr. K. G. Raghavan,
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following
contentions :-
Firstly, although
Section 246 of the Act, and Section 246A of the Act deal with appelable orders,
neither of the sections impose any liability upon the assessee for depositing
any amount before filing the appeals. The issue with regard to the amount to be
deposited, and the power to stay the demand for depositing, was dealt with by
the Circular Instruction No.1914, dated 2.2.1993 (`Circular No.1914' for
short). The Circular No.1914 deals with "Collection and Recovery of the
Income Tax". Instruction No.2-B of Circular No.1914 also deals with the
"Stay Petitions", which could be filed before the Assessing Officer,
while an appeal is to be filed before the Appellate Authority. Instruction
No.2-C of Circular No.1914 deals with the "Guidelines for staying the
demand". According to the learned Senior Counsel, a decision in the matter
of stay of demand shall normally be taken by the Assessing Officer, who is the
immediate superior. However, a higher superior authority is empowered to interfere
with the decision of the Assessing Officer in certain extraneous circumstances,
namely if the assessment order appears to be "unreasonably
highpitched", or "where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to
the assessee". Moreover, according to Instruction No.2-C of Circular
No.1914, certain guidelines have been provided by the said Circular, which
clearly demarcate the circumstances in which the stay can be granted.
Secondly, the Circular
No.1914 was partially modified by the Circular dated 29.2.2016. However, the
Circular No.1914 was never superceded, in toto, by the subsequent Circular
dated 29.2.2016. The partial modification merely relates to streamlining the
process of granting stay, and for standardising the quantum of lumpsum payment
required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of disputed
demand before the CIT (A). Furthermore, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, while Instruction No.4(A) in Circular dated 29.2.2016 seems to
prescribe the minimum percentage that would be required to be deposited by the
assessee as 15% of the disputed demand, but Instruction Nos.4(B)(a), and
4(B)(b) sufficient discretionary power to either ask for a higher amount than
15%, or a lower amount than 15%, respectively. The discretion is bestowed upon
the Assessing Officer. But, in case the Assessing Officer were to demand less
than 15%, he is required to seek the permission from the Prl. CIT. Moreover,
according to Instruction No.4(C) of the said Circular, in case the assessee is
aggrieved by the fact that the Assessing Officer has stayed the demand of 15%
of the disputed demand should be deposited, but the assessee is still
aggrieved, then the assessee would be free to approach the Prl. CIT for
reviewing the decision of the Assessing Officer.
Thirdly, in the present
case, by order dated 23.11.2016, the Assessing Officer had directed the
petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount for the Assessment Year
2014-15, and for the Assessment Year 2015-16, despite the request of the
petitioner that less than 15% of the disputed demand amount should be required
from the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by both the orders
dated 23.11.2016, the petitioner had approached the Prl. CIT. However, without
examining the inter-relationship between Circular No.1914, and the Circular
dated 29.2.2016, the Prl. CIT has dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner. According to the learned Senior Counsel, although the process for
granting of stay was streamlined, and standardized by Circular dated 29.2.2016,
but it could not mean that Instruction No.2-B(iii) contained in Circular
No.1914, namely dealing with the situation of "unreasonably
highpitched", or dealing with the situation of "genuine hardship
caused to the assessee", was erased by the Circular dated 29.2.2016.
Therefore, both these factors should have been considered by both, the
Assessing Officer, as well as by the Prl. CIT.
Fourthly, in the orders
dated 23.11.2016, the Assessing Officer has opined that "no case of
hardship exist", the said opinion is merely a conclusion, which
unsupported by any reason. Therefore, this part of the impugned orders dated
23.11.2016 is a non-speaking order.
Lastly, even the order
dated 25.1.2017 is legally unsustainable. For, the learned Prl. CIT has failed
to see the inter-relationship between the two Circulars mentioned above.
Further, the learned Prl. CIT has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the
case of M/s.Teleradiology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT Circle-12(4) &
Others (Writ Petition NO.26370/2015, decided by this Court on 18.04.2016). But,
the said judgment does not deal with the issue which was raised before the Prl.
CIT. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with by this Court.
7. On the other hand,
Mr. K. V. Aravind, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has pleaded that the
Circular dated 29.2.2016 had superceded the Circular No.1914 in toto, as it was
later in time, and a new procedure was prescribed for streamlining the process
of granting of stay. According to him, the assessee would be entitled to
deposit less than 15% of the disputed demand amount, provided "where
addition on the same issue has been deleted by the Appellate Authorities in
earlier years, or the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or of the
jurisdictional High Court, was in favour of the assessee". According to
the learned counsel, the petitioner's case does not fall in either of these two
categories.
Secondly, Instruction
No.4(A) of the Circular No.1914 prescribes, as a general rule, that 15% of the
disputed demand amount has to be deposited by an assessee. Therefore, both the
Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT were justified in directing the petitioner
to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount.
Thirdly, the petitioner
is running a business concern. It has neither made out any case that it is
facing hardship, nor revealed any circumstance which would impose a hardship
upon the petitioner, in case it were to be asked to deposit 15% of the disputed
demand amount. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the three impugned
orders.
8. Heard the learned
counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, and considered the
Circular No.1914, and the Circular dated 29.2.2016.
9. Undoubtedly, the
present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the
interest of an assessee. Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to
realise the assessed income tax amount from the assessee. However, while trying
to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been
permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock. It is
precisely to balance the conflicting interests that certain guidelines have
been prescribed by Circular No.1914, and Circular dated 29.2.2016.
10. The Circular dated
29.2.2016 clearly states that the circular is "in partial modification of
Instruction No.1914". Therefore, the Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not
supersede the Circular No.1914 in toto, but merely "partially
modifies" the instructions contained in Circular No.1914.
11. A comparative
perusal of both the Circulars clearly reveal that Circular No.1914 deals with
collection and recovery of the income tax, broadly divided into four parts:
firstly responsibility of the collection and recovery; secondly, the stay
petitions; thirdly, the guidelines for staying the demand; fourthly, the
miscellaneous provisions. In the second part, namely the part dealing with the
stay petitions, the relevant portion of said part, marked as Instruction
No.2-B(iii) is as under :
" 2-B (iii) :- The
decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by Assessing
Officer/TRO and his immediate superior. A higher superior authority should
interfere with the decision of the AO/TRO only in exceptional circumstances
e.g. where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably highpitched or where
genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee. The higher authorities
should discourage the assessee from filing review petitions before them as a
matter of routine or in a frivolous manner to gain time for withholding payment
of taxes."
12. The third part,
marked as `2-C', deals with "Guidelines for staying the demand". This
part stipulates the conditions under which the demand can be stayed; it also
deals with certain conditions which the Assessing Officer is free to impose
upon the assessee.
13. However,
interestingly, the Circular No.1914 does not standardize the quantum of lumpsum
payment required to be made by the assessee, as a pre-condition of stay of
disputed demand before CIT (A). Since the Circular No.1914 is silent on this
aspect, the vacuum has been filled up by Circular dated 29.2.2016. The relevant
extract of Circular dated 29.2.2016 is as under :
" 4. In order to
streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum
payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of
demand disputed before CIT (A), the following modified guidelines are being
issued in partial modification of Instruction No.1914 :
(A) In a case where the
outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the assessing officer shall
grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the
disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B)
hereunder.
(B) In a situation
where,
(a) the assessing
officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed
demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted
(e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by
appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or
jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on
credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.) or,
(b) the assessing
officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed
demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted
(e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate
authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or
jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee, etc.), the assessing
officer shall refer the matter to the administrative Pr.CIT/CIT, who after
considering all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/proportion of demand to
be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance
demand.
(C) In a case where
stay of demand is granted by the assessing officer on payment of 15% of the
disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional
administrative Pr.CIT/CIT for a review of the decision of the assessing
officer.
(D) The assessing
officer shall dispose of a stay petition within 2 weeks of filing of the
petition. If a reference has been made to Pr.CIT/CIT under para 4 (B) above or
a review petition has been filed by the assessee under para 4 (C) above, the
same shall also be disposed of by the Pr.CIT/CIT within 2 weeks of the
assessing officer making such reference or the assessee filing such review, as
the case may be.
(E) In granting stay,
the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. He may,
inter alia,-
(i) require an
undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of
appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled;
(ii) reserve the right
review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period (say 6 months) or if
the assessee has not co-operated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a
subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or Court alters the above
situations;
(iii) reserve the right
to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the
amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section
245."
14. Instruction No.4
uses the words "partial modification of Instruction No.1914". Thus,
obviously Circular dated 29.2.2016 has left Instruction No.2-B(iii) contained
in Circular No.1914 absolutely untouched. In fact, Circular dated 29.2.2016
merely prescribed the percentage of the disputed demand that needs to be
deposited by the assessee.
15. According to
Instruction No.4(A) of Circular dated 29.2.2016, it is a general rule, that 15%
of the disputed demand should be asked to be deposited. But, according to
Instruction No.4(B)(a) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, the demand can be
increased to more than 15%; according to Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the Circular
dated 29.2.2016, the percentage can be lower than 15%, provided the permission
of the Prl. CIT is sought by the Assessing Officer. However, in case the Assessing
Officer does not seek the permission from the Prl.CIT, and in case the assessee
is aggrieved by the demand of 15% to be deposited, the assessee is free to
independently approach the Prl. CIT. The assessee would be free to request the
Prl. CIT to make the percentage of disputed demand amount to be less than 15%.
16. It is true that
Instruction No.4 (B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, gives two instances
where less than 15% can be asked to be deposited. However, it is equally true
that the factors, which were directed to be kept in mind both by the Assessing
Officer, and by the higher superior authority, contained in Instruction
No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, still continue to exist. For, as noted above,
the said part of Circular No.1914 has been left untouched by the Circular dated
29.2.2016. Therefore, while dealing with an application filed by an assessee,
both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to see if the
assessee's case would fall under Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914,
or not? Both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to examine
whether the assessment is "unreasonably highpitched", or whether the
demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand amount "would lead to a
genuine hardship being caused to the assessee" or not?
17. A bare perusal of
the two orders, both dated 23.11.2016, Annexures-`A' and `B', clearly reveal
that the Assessing Officer has relied upon Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the
Circular dated 29.2.2016, and has concluded that since the petitioner's case
does not fall within the two illustrations given therein, therefore, it is not
entitled to seek the relief that less than 15% should be demanded to be
deposited by it. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has jumped to the conclusion
that the petitioner's finances do not indicate any hardship in this case.
However, the Assessing Officer has not given a single reason for drawing the
said conclusion. Since the petitioner has been constantly claiming that it has
suffered loss from the very inception of its business, from 2011 to 2016, the
least that the Assessing Officer was required to do was to elaborately discuss
as to whether "genuine hardship" would be caused to the petitioner in
case the petitioner were directed to pay 15% of the disputed demand amount or
not? Yet the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. Therefore, this part of the
order, naturally, suffers from being a non-speaking order. Hence, the said
orders are legally unsustainable.
18. A bare perusal of
the order dated 25.1.2017 also reveals that the Prl. CIT has failed to
appreciate the co-relation between Circular No.1914, and Circular dated
29.2.2016. The Prl. CIT has failed to notice the fact that the latter Circular
has only "partially modified" the former Circular, and has not totally
superceded it. The Prl. CIT has also ignored the fact that Instruction
No.2-B(iii) contained in Circular No.1914 continues to exist independently of
and in spite of the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, it has failed to
consider the issue whether the assessment orders suffers from being
"unreasonably highpitched", or whether "any genuine hardship
would be caused to the assessee" in case the assessee were required to
deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount or not? Thus, the Prl. CIT has failed
to apply the two important factors mentioned in Circular No.1914.
19. Most curiously, the
Prl. CIT has relied upon the case of M/s.Teleradiology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
(supra), without realizing that the issue whether an assessee can be directed
to pay 15% of the disputed demand amount, and under what circumstances he can
be so directed, and under what circumstances less than 15% of the disputed
demand amount could be asked for, these issues were not even involved in the
case of M/s.Teleradiology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,(supra). Despite the fact that
totally different issues were raised in the said case, the Prl. CIT has blindly
applied the order passed in the said case to the present case. Considering the
fact that this blind appreciation of a precedent is a frequent occurrence, in
catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that a judgment
should not be read as a provision of law. A judgment is confined to the facts
and circumstances of its own case. It is only when the facts and circumstances
in two cases are similar that the ratio of the former case becomes applicable
to the latter case. But without realizing this aspect of rule of stare decisis,
the Prl. CIT has erred in applying the reasons given in M/s.Teleradiology
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,(supra). Therefore, even the impugned order dated 25.1.2017
is legally unsustainable.
20. Mr. K. G. Raghavan,
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has also pleaded before this
Court that another anxiety and the pain of the petitioner is that, despite the
fact that appeals have been filed against the Assessment Order dealing with
Assessment Year 2012-13, and 2013-14, they are still pending before respondent
No.3; the respondent No.3 is yet to decide the appeals. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that the issues in the said appeals are similar to the issues
that have been raised by the petitioner in the present appeals, vis-à-vis,
Assessment Year 2014-15, and 2015-16. Since the legal issues are the same,
since the appeals of the subsequent assessment years can easily be decided if
the appeals of the previous assessment years were to be decided, the learned
Senior Counsel seeks directions from this Court to respondent No.3 to decide
the appeals of the Assessment Year 2012-13, and 2013-14, within a limited time
frame.
21. To this request
made by the learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits
that respondent No.3 is over-burdened with large number of appeals to be
decided. Therefore, a limited time frame should not be imposed upon the respondent
No.3 by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel opposes the prayer made by
the learned Senior Counsel.
22. Needless to say,
appeals cannot be kept in an animated suspension over a long period of time.
Keeping any appeal pending will adversely affect not only the interest of the
assessee, but also adversely affects the interest of the Revenue, and,
therefore, of the nation at large. Thus, it will be in the interest of justice
if the appeals filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13, and
2013-14 were to be decided as expeditiously as possible by respondent No.3.
23. For the reasons
stated above, this Writ Petition is, hereby, allowed. The twin orders dated
23.11.2016, and the order dated 25.1.2017, are set aside. The case is remanded
back to the Prl. CIT to again decide the Review Petitions filed by the
petitioner. The Prl. CIT is further directed to decide the Review Petition
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
this order.
The Revenue is directed
not to take any coercive action against the petitioner as long as the matter is
pending before the Prl. CIT.
No comments:
Post a Comment