| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Pramod Kumar (VP), Ravish Sood (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 226(3), 254(2A) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | attachment order, garnishee notices, stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | Devendra Jain |
| DATE: | January 20, 2020 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | January 25, 2020 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2013-14 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition | |
We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi benches due to unavoidable official exigencies. In the meantime, however, the revenue authorities have already issued garnishee notices, under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the bankers of the assessee on 17th January 2020 itself. Such an undue haste in recovery of the disputed demands, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited for the disposal of the stay petition.
Recent Comments