2022 (2) TMI 822 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - Order u/s 115 (O) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of certain transactions arising out of buy-back and payment of amounts to the persons from the shares were purchased - petitioner submits that although the petitioner has deposited the amounts mentioned above, the continuance of lien over the bank account deposit and the bank guarantee furnished cannot be countenanced in the light of the circular of CBDT issued for the purpose of Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Ciruclar Instruction No.1914 dated 20.02.1993 - HELD THAT - This writ petition is disposed by directing the respondents not to encash the bank guarantee or the amounts lying in deposit pursuant to order of this Court pending further orders by the CIT Appeals. In case, adverse orders are passed and appeal is filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 total recovery cannot exceed 20% in terms of circular issued under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and excess lying as security shall be refunded back to the petitioner.

Issues involved:
1. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus to restrain enforcement of an order.
2. Dispute regarding tax deduction on buy-back transactions.
3. Applicability of tax under Section 115(O) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Judicial history of the case leading to the current petition.
5. Compliance with Supreme Court directions and subsequent demand confirmation.
6. Continuance of lien on bank account deposits and fixed deposit receipts.
7. Interpretation of Circular & Instruction No.1914 dated 20.02.1993 by CBDT.
8. Reference to the judgment in LG ELECTRONIC INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CIT 2018 8 SCC 447.
9. Argument on unproductive nature of deposited amount since 2018.
10. Limitation on the amount subject to lien pending appeal.
11. Calculation and comparison of various deposited amounts.
12. Entitlement to further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
13. Timeline for appeal hearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to prevent the enforcement of an order until the disposal of an appeal and release of lien on fixed deposits. The dispute arose from tax deductions on buy-back transactions, leading to a notice under Section 115(O) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner contended that tax had been deducted and remitted to the Income Tax Department during share buy-backs. However, the Department claimed the amount was taxable under Section 115(O), initiating legal proceedings resolved through various court orders.

3. Following directions from the Supreme Court, a representation was sent, resulting in a demand confirmation. The petitioner argued against the continuation of liens based on CBDT circulars and referenced the LG ELECTRONIC INDIA case regarding deposit requirements during appeals.

4. The petitioner highlighted the unproductive nature of the deposited amount since 2018 and argued that the total recovery pending appeal should not exceed 20%, emphasizing the need for a productive use of funds and potential excess deposits subject to refund.

5. The judgment directed the respondents not to encash bank guarantees or deposited amounts pending the appeal hearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It stipulated that total recovery should not surpass 20% as per the Circular under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, with any excess security to be refunded to the petitioner.

← Previous Next →