OM TRAVELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondent No. 2, who has attached the bank account for recovery of the income-tax due against the petitioner in continuation to the assessment order passed by respondent No. 2, against which appeal is pending before respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal is having only Circuit Court at Jabalpur and is not regularly functioning at Jabalpur, though the petitioner has filed appeal before the Tribunal, but it could not be heard on the stay application and in the meantime, respondent No. 2 has proceeded to recover the amount by attaching the bank account of the petitioner in the bank of respondent No. 3. Previously, petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000 with respondent No. 2. On depositing the aforesaid amount, respondent No. 2 released the bank account on 1st April, 2003 vide Annex. P-5, but presently, without awaiting the decision in appeal, the respondent No. 2 has proceeded to recover the amount. He has placed his reliance to three judgments one of Rajasthan High Court in case of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar v. WAT and Ore. , (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), Punjab and Haryana Sigh Court in case of Satpal v. ITAT and Ors. , (1996) 217 ITR 317 (Pandh) and the Kerala High Court in case of N. Rajan Nail v. ITO and Anr. , (1987) 165 ITR 650 (Ker) and contended that till pendency of the appeal, recovery proceedings may be stayed.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid fact, it appears that the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is holding Circuit Court at Jabalpur and it is not regularly sitting at Jabalpur. Though the petitioner filed an application for stay of recovery before the Tribunal, but because of the aforesaid circumstances, the application could not be considered by the Tribunal and the petitioner is facing aforesaid difficulty.