recovery - attachment

[rajul5234]

 in case of new arbuda builders  i.t. dept. attached bank account of the assessee without even granting hearing on

the stay  petition though the  assessed income was over 16 times returned income and over two weeks had elapsed

from the date of filing stay petition.. cit(a) had also not issued notice  of hearing on the appeal filed by assessee.

on a writ,  guj. high court  directed respondents to grant hearing on stay petition in 4 weeks and ordered dept. and

assessee to refrain from withdrawing from bank account till disposal of stay application.

R. K. Patel.

[advsuhail]

Mr.Patel
Although there is decided cases far and against of your query.In these circumstances, you must file an application before the Tax Recovery Officer/ITO that u had field Stay application for recover/attachment and fixed for hearing after 4 week time. In the case of RPG Enterprises Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 251 ITR (AT) 20 (30) (Bom)
the Tribunal observed: "We are living in a democratic set up and the tax-payers
deserve to be respected for their contribution in the National Development. Public
servants are expected to discharge their functions dutifully but not unreasonably.
The officers are supposed to work diligently but not harassingly.It is absolutely
necessary for the Department of Revenue to gain public trust and confidence by
acting judiciously and avoiding undue harassment. We appreciate the scheme of
rewarding honest and diligent officers of the Department but also feel that there is a
necessity of identifying overzealous officers harassing the tax-payers by misusing
their powers." The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is precluded from taking
coercive action for the recovery of the disputed demand until the expiry of the period
of limitation allowed for filing of appeal against the decision of the first appellate
authority and also during the pendency of stay application before any revenueIt is absolutely
necessary for the Department of Revenue to gain public trust and confidence by
acting judiciously and avoiding undue harassment. We appreciate the scheme of
rewarding honest and diligent officers of the Department but also feel that there is a
necessity of identifying overzealous officers harassing the tax-payers by misusing
their powers." The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is precluded from taking
coercive action for the recovery of the disputed demand until the expiry of the period
of limitation allowed for filing of appeal against the decision of the first appellate
authority and also during the pendency of stay application before any revenueIt is absolutely
necessary for the Department of Revenue to gain public trust and confidence by acting judiciously and avoiding undue harassment. We appreciate the scheme of rewarding honest and diligent officers of the Department but also feel that there is anecessity of identifying overzealous officers harassing the tax-payers by misusing
their powers." The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is precluded from taking
coercive action for the recovery of the disputed demand until the expiry of the period
of limitation allowed for filing of appeal against the decision of the first appellate
authority and also during the pendency of stay application before any revenue It is absolutely
necessary for the Department of Revenue to gain public trust and confidence by
acting judiciously and avoiding undue harassment. We appreciate the scheme of
rewarding honest and diligent officers of the Department but also feel that there is a
necessity of identifying overzealous officers harassing the tax-payers by misusing
their powers." The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is precluded from taking
coercive action for the recovery of the disputed demand until the expiry of the period
of limitation allowed for filing of appeal against the decision of the first appellate
authority and also during the pendency of stay application before any revenue

[pawansingla]

Recovery of tax --Stay of recovery proceedings--Factors to be considered--Existence of prima facie case--Order refusing stay without considering existence of prima facie case--Set aside--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 220(6)-- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Deputy DIT (Delhi) . . . 224