9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Show-cause notice under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-payment of tax arrears, petition for a writ of mandamus to restrain prosecution, application under section 143(2) of the Act, interpretation of second proviso to section 143(2).
In this judgment, the petitioner challenged a show-cause notice issued under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-payment of tax arrears. The notice threatened prosecution if the outstanding amount was not paid within 10 days. The petitioner contended that he was not a defaulter as he had objected to the assessment for a particular year under section 143(2) of the Act. The court analyzed the second proviso to section 143(2) which states that as long as the application is pending, the assessee shall not be deemed a defaulter. The court held that if the application is not disposed of, the assessee cannot be considered a defaulter and payment cannot be enforced. Consequently, the demand notice related to the assessment year 1985-86 was quashed, allowing the petitioner to succeed to that extent. However, for the assessment year 1984-85, where no objection was filed under section 143(2), the demand was upheld. The respondent had argued that the application under section 143(2) was filed beyond the time limit and should be ignored. The court rejected this argument, stating that the application must either be acted upon by granting the prayer or dismissed, giving the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate timeliness or request condonation of delay. The court emphasized that as long as the application is not disposed of, the assessee cannot be considered a defaulter. The court quashed the demand notice for the assessment year 1985-86 and directed the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the pending application before initiating recovery proceedings. Overall, the court allowed the petition to the extent that the demand notice for the assessment year 1985-86 was quashed due to the pending application under section 143(2), while upholding the demand for the assessment year 1984-85 where no objection was filed. The court emphasized the importance of disposing of pending applications before initiating recovery proceedings and clarified the implications of the second proviso to section 143(2) in determining default status and enforcement of payment.
|
