JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against : (i) the notice, dated October 4, 2002, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 12(2), New Delhi, attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner in the Central Bank of India, Basti, U. P., for recovery of the outstanding demand pending against the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, and (ii) the order dated October 11, 2002, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi, rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay of the said demand.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, on the one hand, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not disposing of the petitioner’s application for stay of demand, despite the fact that even arguments in the appeal itself have already been heard, where after the petitioner has also filed its written submissions on October 1, 2002, and, on the other, the Department is taking coercive steps to recover the amount in dispute. Mr. Syali, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would urge that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, which has resulted in an additional demand of more than Rs. 2 crores, are sustained by the appellate authority, still, on account of huge brought forward losses, the income so computed by the Assessing Officer shall fall short of these losses, meaning thereby that no amount towards tax, etc., shall be payable by the petitioner in respect of the relevant assessment year.
3. Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, who has put in appearance on advance notice, on the other hand, submits that the respondents had no option but to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner because the petitioner had failed to comply with the order dated August 5, 2002, passed by the Assessing Officer granting conditional stay on the recovery of the demand. It is urged that in terms of the said order the petitioner was required to deposit 50 per cent, of the outstanding demand by August 20, 2002, but it failed to do so. It is also pointed out that it was only in October, 2002, that the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the jurisdictional Commissioner for stay of the demand whereas the Assessing Officer had passed the order granting conditional stay in August, 2002.
4. Having regard to the aforenoted rival stands and bearing in mind the fact that after the passing of order dated August 5, 2002, it was only in the second week of October that the petitioner thought of moving the Commissioner (Appeals) as also the jurisdictional Commissioner for stay of the demand, we find it difficult to hold that the action taken by the respondents in attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner is arbitrary or unwarranted. If the petitioner was aggrieved of the order dated August 5, 2002, it could have promptly taken appropriate steps in the matter.
5. However, in view of the fact that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has already heard the petitioner’s appeal and in fact has called for comments of the Assessing Officer on the written submissions filed by the petitioner, we hope and trust that the Commissioner will try to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as practicable. We understand that the appeal is now coming up for hearing on October 29, 2002. If for some unavoidable reason the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is unable to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, he shall take a final decision in the petitioner’s stay application, dated October 16, 2002, within two weeks from today.
6. The petition and the application for interim relief are disposed of in the above terms.
7. Copies of the order be issued dusty to counsel for the parties under signatures of the court master of this court.