9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 661 - HC - Income TaxDemand notice - Direction to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- issued by CIT(A) in exercise of the powers u/s 220(6) r.w.s. 120 founded on the conclusion that the petitioner was claiming exemption under Section 12A - Held that - The basis on which CIT issued the demand notice to the petitioner being untenable, the direction so issued cannot stand to reason and will have to be set aside, being perverse. The fact that the petitioner has resorted to rectification and/or appeal proceedings against the decision of the AO, does not mean that the petitioner should be forced to pay amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as condition precedent on the assumption that the petitioner was liable to pay tax to the extent of Rs. 79, 43,170/-, which as aforesaid, is completely misplaced and which view suffers from non application of mind. Accordingly the impugned communication is quashed and set aside.
Issues:
Challenge to communication from Commissioner Income Tax demanding immediate deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 based on assessment order under Sections 220(6) and 120 of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged a communication from the Commissioner Income Tax directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 immediately based on an assessment order. The petitioner contested the demand as it was founded on an erroneous assumption that the entire expenditure claimed as exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act was taxable income. The assessment order failed to analyze this aspect, leading to the unreasonable demand notice. The court noted that the petitioner had initiated rectification and appeal proceedings against the Assessing Officer's decision, indicating that forcing the petitioner to pay the amount was premature and misplaced. The court found the basis of the demand untenable and set aside the communication as perverse. The court emphasized that its decision to quash the communication was not a judgment on the merits of the controversy, which should be resolved through rectification or appeal proceedings. The order clarified that all questions regarding the controversy were left open for future legal proceedings. The court disposed of the petition, indicating that the decision did not express any opinion on the underlying issues to be addressed in the appropriate legal forums.
|
