9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 868 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - Recovery of Income-Tax arrears - Request for payment of 20% of the demand - Income liable to be taxed for the assessment year 2012-2013 - petitioner No.1 an association of person or not? - As contended petitioner No.1 does not constitute an association of person and cannot be taxed and that the consideration received by petitioner No.1 has been completely distributed between petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as per the joint venture agreement and that it is petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are liable to be taxed - HELD THAT - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.3 herein, on 28.02.2018 itself. For reasons best known to him, he is yet to decide the said matter. It is only upon examining the case of the petitioners by respondent No.3, it can be concluded whether petitioner No.1 is an association of person, who is liable to tax or not. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for respondent No.4 to demand 20% of the alleged dues as late as in the year 2022 and the same is liable to be set aside. The demand of respondent No.4 as against petitioner No.1 is hereby set aside - Respondent No.3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 is hereby directed to dispose of the case of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible - petitioners will have to pay such tax as determined by respondent No.3 subject to further challenges if any and the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of limitation in this regard.
Issues:
1. Tax liability of petitioner No.1 in a joint venture. 2. Validity of demand raised by respondent No.4 during pending appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Dispute regarding tax assessment for the assessment year 2012-2013. Analysis: Issue 1: Tax Liability of Petitioner No.1 in a Joint Venture The petitioners, comprising petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in a joint venture named M/s. MCML ECI Joint Venture, secured a contract from Indian Railways. The contention arose regarding the taxation of the consideration received from this contract at the hands of petitioner No.1. The petitioners argued that petitioner No.1 is not an association of persons and should not be taxed. They claimed that the consideration was distributed between petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as per the joint venture agreement, making them liable for the tax instead. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 for further examination to determine the tax liability of petitioner No.1. Issue 2: Validity of Demand Raised During Pending Appeal Despite the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.4 issued a demand letter on 04.03.2022, requesting payment of 20% of the outstanding tax amount. The petitioners argued that this demand was premature and should not have been raised while the matter was under consideration before the appellate authority. The court held that demanding payment during the pendency of the appeal was inappropriate and set aside the demand. Issue 3: Dispute Regarding Tax Assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 The dispute primarily revolved around the tax assessment for the assessment year 2012-2013. The petitioners challenged the tax liability of petitioner No.1 and objected to the demand raised by respondent No.4. The court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 to expedite the disposal of the case. It clarified that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed, leaving it to the appellate authority to decide in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the petitioners must pay the determined tax amount subject to further challenges without claiming the benefit of limitation. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the demand raised by respondent No.4 and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 to promptly resolve the tax assessment matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioners were instructed to comply with the tax determination and were not entitled to claim the benefit of limitation in this regard.
|
