9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 528 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand u/s 220(6) - primary contention of the petitioner that in terms of the CBDT Circular dated 29th February, 2016, the 20% of the above demands have been paid by way of adjustment of its refund due for the other assessment years, thus warranting a stay for the balance demand - Held that - Impugned order without considering the decision in Andrew Telecommunications India (P) Ltd. (2016 (12) TMI 1286 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and the other submissions warranting a stay has in breach of the parameters laid down for disposal of the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Act by this Court in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R. Balakrishnan 2001 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court . Therefore, the impugned order dated 26th March, 2018 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner s stay application dated 19th March, 2018 is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) respondent no.1 for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting stay application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for pending appeals. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order dated 26th March, 2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), rejecting their application seeking a stay under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for appeals pending for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The primary contention was that 20% of the demands had been paid by adjusting the refund due for other assessment years as per a CBDT Circular, warranting a stay for the balance demand. The petitioner also cited the decision in Andrew Telecommunications India (P) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa, and raised various other issues on the merits of the case, seeking a stay. However, the impugned order failed to consider the relevant decisions and submissions, breaching the parameters laid down for disposal of stay applications under Section 220(6) of the Act by the Court in previous cases. The High Court, in its judgment, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 26th March, 2018. The petitioner's stay application dated 19th March, 2018 was restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The Revenue, represented by learned Counsel, agreed to vacate the bank accounts attached as per the impugned order by 10th April, 2018. It was further stated that no coercive proceedings would be adopted by the Revenue until the disposal of the petitioner's application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). In case the order on the stay application was adverse, no coercive proceedings would be initiated for a week from the communication of the order to the petitioner. In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, ensuring that the stay application would be reconsidered in compliance with the law and previous judicial decisions.
|
