PREMANANDA TRUST Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are set out below: In respect of the fourth respondent -assessee, the block assessment order for the assessment years 1985 -86 to 1995 -96 was passed on December 29, 1995. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) by his order dated February 27, 1998, set aside the assessment orders and remanded the case with observations. The fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 17641 of 1999 contending that the assessing authority should not pursue with the assessment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein and the writ petition was disposed of on November 2, 1999, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the final orders. Pursuant thereto, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on March 29, 2000. The revision filed by the fourth respondent against that order was dismissed on March 12, 2003. Against the order dated March 12, 2003, the fourth respondent filed Writ Petitions Nos. 15527 to 15537 of 2003, pending the same, conditional stay was granted on October 16, 2003, on condition of the writ petitioner paying 50 per cent. of the tax arrears and furnishing a bank guarantee for remaining 50 per cent. of the tax arrears. Since both the conditions were not complied with, the stay got vacated automatically on November 12, 2003. Thereafter, writ appeals were filed with petitions to condone the delay but the same were not pursued by the fourth respondent.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings is barred by limitation is contested and it is stated that after excluding the period of stay between March 23, 2006 and June 21, 2006, since the balance number of days is less than 180 days, it stands extended for a further period of 180 days from June 21, 2006, which ends on December 18, 2006 and therefore auction notified on December 12, 2006, is well within the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. In the counter -affidavit, the respondents have further stated that the petitioner filed an application under Rule 11 of the Rules only on November 28, 2006 and on November 29, 2006, itself the date of hearing was fixed for December 1, 2006, to give an opportunity of personal hearing but the petitioner sent a telegram seeking for an adjournment. The request for adjournment was accepted and the hearing was fixed for December 7, 2006. In the hearing, on December 7, 2006, the petitioner was represented by its counsel and the orders were passed on December 8, 2006. In the meantime the above writ petition has been filed. According to respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the writ petition has been filed only to delay the recovery proceedings.