9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1820 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - recovery proceedings - granted relief to the extent of 85% of the demand - AO demanded the amount rejecting the assessee s explanation that the said sum was invested in Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) on account of Central Government s policy through the directives of the appropriate ministry - HELD THAT - The Court notices that the AO applied the Board s office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and has granted relief to the extent of 85% of the demand. However having regard to the materials on record it is quite clear that the amounts were deposited with the BARC not by way of investment or choice but on account of a Central Government policy. This peculiar circumstance warrants adoption of the policy spelt out in para 4(D) of the memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The petitioner s appeal may therefore be decided by the concerned Appellate Commissioner within three months from today. Pending a final decision no coercive steps shall be taken to enforce the demand. In the light of the above order the petitioner shall ensure that the review application filed before the CIT(E) and the Chief Commissioner is withdrawn within a week.
Issues:
1. Demand under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Disallowance of investment in Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) 3. Application of Board's office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 4. Relief granted by the Assessing Officer (AO) 5. Central Government policy regarding investment Analysis: 1. Demand under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The petitioner was aggrieved by the AO's demand under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a specific sum. The petitioner's application for staying the demand was pending before the Commissioner (E). The AO had demanded the amount despite the petitioner's explanation that the sum was invested in BARC as per the Central Government's policy, through directives of the appropriate ministry. 2. Disallowance of investment in Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC): The Court observed that the amounts were deposited with BARC not as an investment or choice but due to a Central Government policy. The petitioner argued that this investment yielded dividends, potentially attracting income tax. The Court considered this argument and noted the peculiar circumstance of the investment being made as per government policy. 3. Application of Board's office memorandum dated 29.02.2016: The AO applied the Board's office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and granted relief to the extent of 85% of the demand. However, upon reviewing the materials on record, the Court found that the investment in BARC was made due to a Central Government policy, not as a typical investment decision. 4. Relief granted by the Assessing Officer (AO): The AO had granted relief to the petitioner to the extent of 85% of the demand. Despite this relief, the petitioner sought further consideration based on the nature of the investment made in BARC and its alignment with government policy. 5. Central Government policy regarding investment: Considering the peculiar circumstance of the investment in BARC being made in accordance with a Central Government policy, the Court directed that the petitioner's appeal be decided by the concerned Appellate Commissioner within three months. It was also ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken to enforce the demand pending a final decision. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to withdraw the review application filed before the CIT(E) and the Chief Commissioner within a week. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above terms, emphasizing the unique circumstances surrounding the investment in BARC and the need for a thorough review based on government policy.
|
