Issue of appellate order within 15 days of last hearing- CBDT reiterates instructions

In spite of Board’s Instructions No. 20/2003 dated 23rd December 2003, appeals before the CIT (Appeals) are pending for disposals for very long time; and in some cases they are pending for years.
Pendency of appeal before the CIT (Appeals) not only results in harassment to assesees for recovery of disputed demand, but also results embarrassment to Assessing Officers to enforce recovery of disputed demand owing to pressure from Senior Officers in order to achieve unrealistic action plan targets of budget collection and arrear demand collection. Assessing Officers are either tempted or compelled to raise disputable demand before the end of financial year in order to achieve action plan targets by insisting payment of demand upto 50% at least by end of financial year. Even after collection of 50% of demand neither the assessee have peace of mind nor the Assessing Officer since such stay of demand is granted for certain period; and normally the assessee’s appeal not even posted for hearing by CIT(Appeals) before the end of the said period of stay. Even after payment of 50% demand the assessee has to run from office to office to get further extension of stay or to get his appeal disposed off. There are instances where assessees have filed writ to see that their appeals are disposed off immediately by the CIT (Appeals) in order to avoid hardship on recovery of demand by Assessing Officers.
In order to avoid harassment to assessees and embarrassment to Assessing Officers, it is suggested that the Board may consider to issue necessary administrative instructions on the following lines:
1. Prescribing time limitation by which appeal shall be disposed off by the CIT (Appeals). Period for which the assessee was granted time in writing to furnish specific particulars as called for by the CIT(A) may be excluded from the period of time limitation.
2. a) If the demand, disputed before the CIT(Appeals), is covered by any decision of the Tribiunal/HC in favour of the assessee, such demand shall not be enforced for recovery by the Assessing Officer till the disposal of appeal. This will prevent Assessing Officers to raise huge disputed demand for sake of budget collection, even though the proceedings are not getting time barred by end of the financial year. And interest of revenue is also protected since assessee is laible to pay interest u/s 220(1) on belated payment of demand. Assessing Officer may also protect interest of revenue by resorting to provisional attachment of properties by making a reference to Tax Recovery Officer in appropriate cases. Liability to pay interest u/s 220(1) may stimulate and compel assessees to pay disputed demand keeping in view the facts of their case.
b) If the demand, disputed before the CIT(Appeals), is not covered by any decision of the Tribunal/HC in favour of the assessee, such demand shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal on payment of 50% of disputed demand. In financial hardship cases, the Assessing Officer may be empowered to grant installments or to grant stay on payment of any sum on merits of the case. This will bring transparency and clarity among tax payers and save their time and labour in filing and pursuing applications for stay of demand before one officer to another officer; and it also saves time and manpower of Assessing Officers in disposal and submitting of report on such stay applications to the Senior Officers.

V. G. IRKAL
Hospet

vasantirkal vasantirkal 22/06/2015