AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned standing counsel in the Income Tax
Department.
The petitioner which is a company engaged in the business of selling and dealing in jewellery and gemstone having its show room at Marwari
Patty, Nagaon is having a certain issue as regards the payment of income tax for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.03.2014, for the assessment year 2011-12 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
respondent No.2 being the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati, which was registered as Appeal No.GUWA-153/2014-2015.
Further there is an assessment order dated 13.02.2014 for the assessment year 2012-2013, which was subsequently revised by the order dated
30.12.2016. As regards the liability of the petitioner to pay the tax in respect of the aforesaid two assessment years, notices under Section 226(3)
of the Income Tax Act were issued to the petitioner.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by one such notice dated 14.11.2017 under Section 226(3). The only grievance raised by the
petitioner is that there was a dacoity in the jewellery shop of the petitioner, as a result of which, they are unable to pay the tax liability to the
department for the present.
It is stated that an appeal was filed against the assessment order for the year 2011-2012 and a similar appeal is also intended to be filed by the
petitioner for the assessment year 2012-2013. It is also stated that the total due as claimed by the Income Tax Department would be
approximately about Rs.1,02,21,941/- for the assessment year 2011-2012 and Rs.4,75,35,870/- for the assessment year 2012-2013.
It is stated by Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel that although an appeal has been preferred against the assessment order for the year 2011-2012,
but no such application has been filed by the petitioner for stay of the tax demand. Be that as it may, considering the ground sought to be made out
by the petitioner that they are unable to pay the demanded amount for the present as because of the dacoity that had taken place in the showroom,
this Court is of the view that although equity is otherwise not available in a situation resulting from default of payment of income tax, but considering
the factor of the dacoity having taken place in the showroom of the petitioner, a view can be taken that if the petitioner pays a part of the amount
demanded, the balance of the payable amount be stayed for the time being till appropriate appeal proceeding is disposed of by the concerned
authority.
Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel refers to an office memorandum dated 29.02.2016, where it is provided that in a case where the outstanding
demand is disputed before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal), the assessing officer shall stay the demand till disposal of the appeal on
payment of 20% disputed amount.
In the aforesaid premises, as agreed between the parties, the petitioner undertakes to pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- within a period of
fifteen days and upon the same amount being paid, the balance of the disputed amount be stayed till the decision by the appropriate appellate
authority.
It is also provided that in the event the petitioner does not file the other appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 within the stipulated time, the
interim protection in respect of the amount payable for the assessment year 2012-2013 shall stand automatically vacated and the department shall
be entitled to recover the amount due.
In terms of the above, writ petition stands closed.
However, as agreed by the parties, the appellate authority is requested to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of three months from
today.