Delhi High Court
Shankar Trading Co. Ltd. vs Itat on 22 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006 153 TAXMAN 62 Delhi
ORDER
By the Court
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23-11-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for stay of the demand for the years 1994-95 to 1996-97. However, it fixed the appeals for hearing, which are stated to be fixed on 5-4-2005, The contention raised before us is that for these three years, which are subjudiced before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the balance amount payable as of today is Rs. 1,83,25,495 out of which in the recent times Rs. 29 lakhs have also been recovered by the department by virtue of attachments or other coercive steps.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23-11-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for stay of the demand for the years 1994-95 to 1996-97. However, it fixed the appeals for hearing, which are stated to be fixed on 5-4-2005, The contention raised before us is that for these three years, which are subjudiced before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the balance amount payable as of today is Rs. 1,83,25,495 out of which in the recent times Rs. 29 lakhs have also been recovered by the department by virtue of attachments or other coercive steps.
3. The petitioner submits that he is a bona fide tax payer and has no intention to evade the payment of tax. He, however, states that as the petitioner has a good prima facie case to succeed in the appeals before the Tribunal, he would pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs per month by 7th day of each month. The first payment be made on or before 31-3-2005 and has further given undertaking to the court that he would not alienate, sublet or part with the possession of any of the immovable or movable assets except to the sale of products in the normal course of its business during the pendency of the appeals and thereafter it shall govern by such orders, as may be passed by the Appellate Authority or the assessing officer in exercise of his powers vested under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The petitioner submits that he is a bona fide tax payer and has no intention to evade the payment of tax. He, however, states that as the petitioner has a good prima facie case to succeed in the appeals before the Tribunal, he would pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs per month by 7th day of each month. The first payment be made on or before 31-3-2005 and has further given undertaking to the court that he would not alienate, sublet or part with the possession of any of the immovable or movable assets except to the sale of products in the normal course of its business during the pendency of the appeals and thereafter it shall govern by such orders, as may be passed by the Appellate Authority or the assessing officer in exercise of his powers vested under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in the event the petitioner strictly adheres to the undertaking given to this Court, the appeals would be heard on 5-4-2005 and decided in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in the event the petitioner strictly adheres to the undertaking given to this Court, the appeals would be heard on 5-4-2005 and decided in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above circumstances, we dispose of this petition while directing the petitioner that the first Rs. 10 lakhs be paid on or before 31-3-2005. The petitioner shall also not alienate, sublet or part with the possession of any of the immovable or movable assets except in dealing with his goods in the normal course of its business. If the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is deposited, the appeal would be heard on merits on 5-4-2005 in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above circumstances, we dispose of this petition while directing the petitioner that the first Rs. 10 lakhs be paid on or before 31-3-2005. The petitioner shall also not alienate, sublet or part with the possession of any of the immovable or movable assets except in dealing with his goods in the normal course of its business. If the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is deposited, the appeal would be heard on merits on 5-4-2005 in accordance with law.
6. The orders of attachment issued against the bank accounts of the petitioner and/or its customers would be lifted only upon payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as aforestated and if there is any default in payment of Rs. 10 lakhs every month thereafter, the department would obviously be at liberty to pass such orders of attachment, as they may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, we make it clear that this is an undertaking of Mr. Rajkumar Mehta who states that he has been directed by the Managing Director of the Company to make a statement before the court that the order afore-mentioned shall be complied with in its true spirit. We accept the statement and undertaking given by him for himself and on behalf of the Managing Director of the Company. We make it clear that in the event of default, both of them shall be liable to be proceeded with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
6. The orders of attachment issued against the bank accounts of the petitioner and/or its customers would be lifted only upon payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as aforestated and if there is any default in payment of Rs. 10 lakhs every month thereafter, the department would obviously be at liberty to pass such orders of attachment, as they may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, we make it clear that this is an undertaking of Mr. Rajkumar Mehta who states that he has been directed by the Managing Director of the Company to make a statement before the court that the order afore-mentioned shall be complied with in its true spirit. We accept the statement and undertaking given by him for himself and on behalf of the Managing Director of the Company. We make it clear that in the event of default, both of them shall be liable to be proceeded with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
CM No. 16864/2004 also stands disposed of.
