Case Law Details
Kallakuri Dhana Lakshmi Katyayan Vs ITO (Telangana High Court)
By order dated 16.12.2021, respondent No.1 has taken the view that stay can be granted subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding demand within a week. While arriving at the above, respondent No.1 placed reliance on Circular dated 31.07.2017, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
On going through the impugned order of respondent No.1 dated 16.12.2021, we are of the view that the said order is devoid of reasons. Petitioner was required to be heard, and there should be due application of mind before a decision is taken on the prayer for stay. Impugned order dated 16.12.2021 does not indicate or disclose any application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 in considering the prayer of the petitioner.
It is well settled that recording of reasons is essential while dealing with such prayers made by an assessee.
In view of above, we set aside the order dated 16.12.2021 and remand the matter back to respondent No.1 for taking a fresh decision within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. According to petitioner, she is engaged in the business of running an authorised APTOnline (MeeSeva) Centre / Common Service Centre (CSC) (popularly known as ‘MeeSeva’ Centre) which is a joint venture of Tata Consultancy Services and Government of Telangana.
3. As part of her business, she makes deposit on behalf of her customers to the various banks, primarily to the State Bank of India. The deposits pertain to various consumer bills, viz., electricity, water, telephone, etc. Petitioner is also an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, ‘the Act’ hereinafter) and is assessed under the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. Assessment status of the petitioner is that of individual.
4. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, Assessment Order was passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, on 23.04.2021 under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 144B of the said Act. As against the income shown by the petitioner in her return, i.e., Rs.4,31,500/-, the income of the petitioner has been assessed at Rs.8,02,30,250/- in the Assessment Order. Following the Assessment Order, demand notice came to be issued to the petitioner.
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the deposits made by the petitioner on behalf of her customers have been treated as the income of the petitioner which has resulted in such high assessment.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, petitioner has preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, i.e., respondent No.4 vide acknowledgment No.347246820030521.
7. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed application for stay of demand before respondent No.1 under Section 220(6) of the Act.
8. By order dated 16.12.2021, respondent No.1 has taken the view that stay can be granted subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding demand within a week. While arriving at the above, respondent No.1 placed reliance on Circular dated 31.07.2017, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 issued notice to State Bank of India, Manikonda Branch (respondent No.5), for attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner under Section 226(3) of the Act whereafter bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with respondent No.5 have been attached. The three bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No.5-Bank are 31281487025, 34317014106 and 33754560562, respectively.
10. Further, respondent No.1 has issued similar notice to respondent No.6 pursuant to which the APTOnline account maintained by the petitioner with respondent No.6 has also been attached.
11. Following such attachment of bank accounts, the regular day-to-day activity of the petitioner has come to a grinding halt. It is in such circumstances the present writ petition has been filed.
12. Respondent No.1 had filed counter-affidavit objecting to the prayer made by the petitioner.
13. On going through the impugned order of respondent No.1 dated 16.12.2021, we are of the view that the said order is devoid of reasons. Petitioner was required to be heard, and there should be due application of mind before a decision is taken on the prayer for stay. Impugned order dated 16.12.2021 does not indicate or disclose any application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 in considering the prayer of the petitioner.
14. It is well settled that recording of reasons is essential while dealing with such prayers made by an assessee.
15. In view of above, we set aside the order dated 16.12.2021 and remand the matter back to respondent No.1 for taking a fresh decision within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
16. Since we have set aside the order of respondent No.1 dated 16.12.2021, we direct respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 to withdraw the attachment of bank accounts and APTOnline account respectively of the petitioner forthwith.
17. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit as well as on the prayer for stay. All contentions are kept open.
18. This disposes of the writ petition. No order as to costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.19.
