Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the illegal recovery, even despite strict directions of the Tribunal, has been made by the Assessing officer without the knowledge of the higher officials. It is painful to note here that the Departmental officials in order to achieve their targets at the close of the financial year i.e. by 31st 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 ignorant 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 pressurised by the higher officials to do so and they have to choose the lesser risky option out of the two i.e. either to face the departmental action / dire of their senior officers for not achieving the targets or to face the contempt proceedings, if any, likely to be initiated by the Courts of law for violation of their orders, and interestingly, they conveniently choose the later option because perhaps they think that courts / higher judicial authorities will not opt for strict view in case the amount coercively recovered is refunded after passing of the cutoff date i.e. 31st March, and an apology tendered to the Court / higher judicial authority. They also know that that even such a situation of refund or apology 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 case, but we have come across with these type of facts and circumstances in other cases also. This type of practice adopted by the Department, in our view, may lead to severe consequences affecting the administration of justice. It is right time for the Department / CBDT to take necessary steps in this respect.
Now coming to the facts on merits, as observed above, since the amount recovered illegally during the stay application has been refunded by the Department to the assessee and the assessee at this stage is no more aggrieved; further the concerned officials have also tendered unconditional apology and also in view of our observations made above that these lower rank departmental officers have to succumb to the pressure of their higher ups for the sake of their service / career, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Assessing officer and Addl. CIT.
