Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another … v. M/S Divya Yog Mandir Trust …

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 491 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & another … Petitioners Vs M/s Divya Yog Mandir Trust … Respondents Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. (Oral) I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned ITAT. By this impugned order, the learned Tribunal after recording detailed reasons and weighing comparative prima facie case has granted stay of the recovery proceedings on the following amongst other conditions:- (i) Outstanding demand is stayed till disposal of appeal or six months which ever is earlier. or six months which ever is earlier. (ii) The department is directed to defreeze the assessee’s bank accounts forthwith. assessee’s bank accounts forthwith. (iii) The hearing of appeal is fixed for 02.04.2003. The assessee as well as the department both should not indulge into seeking adjournments unless justified by a proper and reasonable cause. assessee as well as the department both should not indulge into seeking adjournments unless justified by a proper and reasonable cause. (iv) The assessee shall not transfer or alienate its assets till disposal of appeal by the ITAT. till disposal of appeal by the ITAT. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given his tentative assessment that the value of the assets of the respondent would be around hundred crore and whereas the demand of tax is `40 crore. I think, the revenue is amply protected for the time being. The above order was passed on 14.02.2013 and the department could wait from 14.02.2013 till today, therefore, the element of urgency has been allowed to be diluted by the department itself. If I grant any interim stay of the impugned order that amounts to deciding the writ petition finally without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent. That is not possible in any sense. By the time I decide the matter after issuing notice and considering the objection of the respondent that is to be done in any event 2[nd] April, 2013 being date of time final hearing will reach. Therefore, in all practical senses instead of entertaining this matter at this stage, it would be ideal to dispose of the matter, at the admission stage, by passing following order, even though the petitioner could have taken step under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the impugned order. The learned Tribunal though had expressed intention to decide the matter expeditiously, I feel this Court would be happy if the time schedule is adhere to. Therefore, I direct the learned Tribunal to complete the hearing on 2[nd]April, 2013, if possible. If not possible then day to day hearing is to be taken and the matter should be decided at an early date. The interim order of stay granted by the learned Tribunal will continue for maximum period of eight weeks from date. If the matter is not heard and disposed of finally within a period of eight weeks then it would be open for the parties to pray for appropriate relief, obviously the learned Tribunal will consider in accordance with law. The findings and observations recorded by the learned Tribunal should not binding factor at the time of final disposal, as those findings are recorded obviously at interlocutory stage and it is always a tentative finding. No order as to costs. (K.J. Sengupta, J.)