The Gujarat High Court has restrained the income tax department from initiating recovery proceedings during pendency of appeals before Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has observed that if the department is not interested in resolution of the issue of pendency of the Appeals the manner in which it ought to have been resolved by classifying the Appeals as per the issues concerning the recurring issues, covered issues, etc., then no recovery should be made from the assessees during the pendency of the Appeals.
Background – Pendency Of Appeals
The matters are pending before this Court on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not disposing the pending Appeals on one hand and the recovery proceedings are initiated by the respondent-Income Tax Department for the outstanding demand.
Relevant Provisions
With regard to remedial measures suggested by Central Board of Direct Taxes for reduction of the backlog of the pending appeals, it is stated that the CBDT has issued the guidelines for the priority/out of turn disposal on 19.03.2024 and 100 JCIT (Appeals) are appointed in the year 2023 and as per Section 345MA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, e-Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2022 is notified and under Finance Act, 2024, new measures have been introduced and Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 is also introduced by Finance Act, 2024 and Commissioner (Appeals) have been empowered to set aside the ex-parte assessment orders.
No other measures are stated in the affidavit with regard to as to how the pending appeals with the CIT (Appeals) which is around 1400 cases per Faceless CIT (Appeals) shall be heard and within what time span such appeals shall be disposed of by the concerned CIT (Appeals).
No measures are mentioned with regard to bunching of similar appeals or repeated issues for different succeeding years in appeals, covered matters etc. which would speedily dispose of such appeals by CIT (Appeals).
Conclusion
The court while allowing the petition held that the petitioner is protected by restraining the department from taking any coercive action.
Case Details
Case Details
Case Title: Om Vision Infraspace Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4) & Ors
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 6953 Of 2020
Date: 15/10/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: K. Parikh, Ashutosh S. Dave, Dhinal A. Shah
Counsel For Respondent: Karan Sanghani for learned advocate Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval
