Income Tax - Despite Stay by ITAT, bank accounts attached - clearly amounts to overreach of interim order of Tribunal; invites contempt proceedings - Attachment Lifted: HC
THE ingenious and often illegal and illogical ways invented by the Revenue for collecting illegitimate Revenue during the last quarter, though considered irreprehensible by the big bosses, causes irreparable damage, not only to cause of collection of Revenue but to the very basic foundation of taxation, as the following case would show.
The assessee had obtained Stay from the Tribunal on 14.2.2014. On 19.2.2014, the Assessing Officer attached the bank accounts of the assessee, in spite of the Stay granted five days ago.
The aggrieved assessee is before the High Court. In the High Court, the Revenue took a peculiar stand - that the Assessing Officer was not present when the Tribunal delivered the Stay order!
The High Court Judge, Justice Easwar - a former President of the ITAT was not amused. He noted that the CIT-DR was present when the Tribunal delivered its Stay order and further the Stay order was pronounced in the open Court. He further observed, "In these circumstances, the submission of the revenue that the concerned assessing officer was not intimated, cannot be accepted. If such an argument was made before this Court, where orders are pronounced in Court in the presence of counsel, it would certainly not be accepted, and in fact would be seriously viewed. In the facts of this case, it clearly amounts to overreach of the interim order of the Tribunal; in a similar situation, this Court itself would possibly be initiating contempt proceedings. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent should lift the attachment and ensure that the amounts recovered are deposited back in the petitioner's account within a week from today."
Why do Revenue officers show such contempt for the Law framed by Parliament and for orders passed by higher judicial authorities? Is it plain arrogance or over-anxiety to collect Revenue by means fair or foul? Perhaps, it is a firm belief fortified by experience that they are never punished for such patently illegal activities. These officers are as much offenders as evaders and other criminals and the system can be set right only by awarding exemplary punishment to such offenders, who are a blot on democracy, government, law, administration, tax collection and public service. They don't deserve to be officers of the Government of a democratic welfare State.