- (1.) THIS petition is preferred mainly for the following reliefs: (i) Quashing the Notices dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Income Tax Department u/s 226(3) of the Income -Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter to be referred to be as 'The Act of 1961' (ii)To refund the money appropriated under the order of the attachment to the petitioner till the appeal before CIT (Appeals) is pending (iii) For quashing, withdrawing, rescinding and revoking of the impugned final reassessment order along with demand dated 25.03.2014 for the assessment year 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 and consequent demands (iv) To pass an interim order during the pendency of the instant writ application restraining the respondent authorities from giving any effect and/or further effect to the said impugned orders dated 25.3.2014 (order of reassessment) etc. Submissions made by counsel for the petitioner:
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially order of assessment was passed for the Assessment years 2010 -11 and 2011 -12. Thereafter, Notice under section 148 of The Act of 1961 was issued for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. Ultimately order of re -assessment for both the aforesaid years was passed on 25th March, 2014, which was challenged in appeal preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter to be referred to as 'CIT (Appeals)') and during pendency of the appeal, W.P.(T) 5557 of 2014 was preferred before this court challenging the order of re -assessment along with demand dated 25th March, 2014 for the assessment year 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 and subsequent demands of Rs. 48,75,050/ - and for Rs. 43,12,391/ - by demand notice dated 25th June, 2014. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20th January, 2015, finding no illegality on the part of the respondents because no application was preferred for stay against the recovery of demand along with the memo of appeal filed before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
(3.) IT is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal was preferred before the C.I.T. (Appeals) by this petitioner against the order of reassessment in the month of April, 2014. Thereafter, stay application was preferred during the period from 21st January -February, 2015, upon which an order was passed by the CIT (Appeals) on 17th February, 2015. Said order is at Annexure 2 to the I.A. No. 1197 of 2015, wherein it has been ordered by C.I.T. (Appeals) that so far as interest charged over and above the returned income under Section 234(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, demand was stayed and for rest of the amount direction was given to the Assessing Officer to grant or suitably modify installments granted to the appellant for the payment of outstanding demands. In pursuance of this order of the CIT(Appeals), a letter dated 20th February, 2015 was written by this petitioner for granting installments for payment of the rest approximately Rs. 64,00,000/ - as per order dated 17th February, 2015 of CIT (Appeals). Respondents have shown undue haste to recover the amount since appeal against the order of reassessment is still pending before the CIT (Appeals):It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that ultimately 16 installments were granted, but, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) has passed an order of attachment of the bank accounts and has also written letters to the customers/debtors of the petitioner. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as per the Circular dated 21st August, 1969 (CBDT's Instruction No. 95), issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, regarding stay petition higher authority can interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer when assessment is substantially higher e.g. assessment at twice the amount of the returned income tax and therefore, in the facts of the present case, the order of attachment of the Assessing Officer should have been held in abeyance till the decision of the appeal because when the assessment is substantially higher or high pitched and going to cause genuine hardship to the assessee, stay should be given to the order of attachment. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on this circular and submitted that department should have waited for sometime instead of attaching the bank accounts and writing letters to the customers/debtors of the petitioner and these illegal actions taken in haste has caused substantial loss to the petitioner . Interlocutory Applications preferred in this writ petition with different prayers may kindly be allowed by this court. Submissions made on behalf of counsel for the respondents:;