DR. S.R. GIRI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -2005-LL-0329-8]

Citation 2005-LL-0329-8
Appellant Name DR. S.R. GIRI
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/03/2005
Assessment Year 1994-95, 1996-97, 1999-2000
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: It has been submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that these demands have beencreated by the Department with a view to take revenge with the assessee who is practising as amedical practitioner because he had got a police case registered against one ofthe ITOs, who was also arrested in a case on the complaint of the assessee. The financial position of the assesseeis stated to be in bad shape and it is also submitted that the assessee is not in a position to give adequate security ashe has no income worth the demand raised against him. After hearing both the parties andgoing through the available record, we are of the considered opinion that thewhole matrix of the facts of the case is complex one and in the light of thefacts it seems that there had been strained relation between the Department andthe assessee but at the stage it cannot be statedthat the demand raised is the outcome of the alleged revenge only. The ratio ofthe jurisdictional High Court and the Board's circular as referred to by the assessee in written submission and relied by him definitelyhelp the case of the assessee. At the same time,the assessee is not ready to give security againstthe outstanding demand. Keeping in overall situation an early hearing isgranted in all the appeals in relation to which these stay applications havebeen filed and till such time, it is ordered that theDepartment shall not take any coercive steps for the recovery in question. The assessee is precluded from seekingadjournment on flimsy grounds on the date of hearing, otherwise, the staygranted against the demand and for coercive steps as ordered above shall standvacated and the appeals shall also be released from priority list.


JODHPUR BENCH DR. S.R. GIRI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER March 29, 2005 JUDGMENT Hari Om Maratha, Judicial Member. - These aresix stay applications, which relate to same assesseefor assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97 to 1999-2000. details of returns ofincome assessed for these years is as below: Asst.yr.Returned incomeAssessed incomeAs per assessed income after appeal effect of CIT(A) order (Rs.)(Rs.)(Rs.)Relief(Rs.)Sustained (Rs.) 1994-9546,53021,92,65213,30,6688,61,984 1996-9764,55012,34,3222,49,7909,84,532 1997-9896,83014,10,8302,22,44612,46,666 1998-991,48,78014,26,6972,83,00011,43,697 1999-2000Rs.1,78,333Rs. 34,92,003Rs.9,83,213Rs. 25,08,790 2.The total demand along with interest is stated to be Rs. 60,28,390which includes interest of Rs. 39,45,198.It has been submitted by learned Authorised Representative that these demands have beencreated by Department with view to take revenge with assessee who is practising as amedical practitioner because he had got police case registered against one ofthe ITOs, who was also arrested in case on complaint of assessee. learned AuthorisedRepresentative has also drawn list of important dates and events, which aregiven in paper book. It has also been submitted that in view of famouscase of jurisdictional High Court in case of Late His Highness Maharana Shri BhagwatSinghji of Mewar v. ITAT[1996] 133 CTR (Raj.) 97/[1997] (Raj.) wherein it hasbeen held that if assessed income is more than double of returnedincome, then in that case, entire demand involved in appeal pendingbefore Tribunal should remain stayed till disposal of appeal. Thelearned Authorised Representative has discussed longhistory of events before Bench but at this stage, we are concerned withthe stay application only. financial position of assesseeis stated to be in bad shape and it is also submitted that assessee is not in position to give adequate security ashe has no income worth demand raised against him. 3.On other hand, learned Departmental Representative has opposed thegrant of absolute stay in favour of assessee/applicant. After hearing both parties andgoing through available record, we are of considered opinion that thewhole matrix of facts of case is complex one and in light of thefacts it seems that there had been strained relation between Department andthe assessee but at stage it cannot be statedthat demand raised is outcome of alleged revenge only. ratio ofthe jurisdictional High Court and Board's circular as referred to by assessee in written submission and relied by him definitelyhelp case of assessee. But at same time,the assessee is not ready to give security againstthe outstanding demand. Keeping in overall situation early hearing isgranted in all appeals in relation to which these stay applications havebeen filed and till such time, it is ordered that theDepartment shall not take any coercive steps for recovery in question. TheRegistry is directed to fix impugned appeals, out of turn on 20th April,2005. However, assessee is precluded from seekingadjournment on flimsy grounds on date of hearing, otherwise, staygranted against demand and for coercive steps as ordered above shall standvacated and appeals shall also be released from priority list. 4.In result, above stay applications are disposed of accordingly. *** DR. S.R. GIRI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error