9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 401 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - stay of 80% of the disputed demand till disposal of the appeal, subject to payment of 20% of the demand - HELD THAT - The petitioner to be present before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 05.03.2020 at 11.30 a.m. and the request of petitioner as contained in the representation dated 07.02.2020 would be disposed of in light of the observations made above. In light of the submission that there has been attachment of bank account and in light of the direction being passed, the attachment already resorted to would be limited to ₹ 61,17,317/-. However, in light of the attachment being restricted to ₹ 61,17,317/-, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period not later than one week from the date of appearance of the petitioner as noticed above. All contentions of parties are kept open. It is made clear that if the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax does not decide the matter within a period of one week as stipulated, the attachment would automatically stand vacated.
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and related orders. 2. Appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order. 3. Application for stay and interim relief. 4. Representation to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for stay of recovery of demand. 5. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Consideration of application for stay by Assessing Officer and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 7. Guidelines for granting stay as per Circular No.1914 and relevant case laws. 8. Attachment of bank account and limitation to a specific amount. 9. Timeline for disposal of representation by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the notice under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the assessment order and demand pursuant to it. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order. The petitioner sought a stay and interim relief, with the Assessing Officer granting an 80% stay of the disputed demand subject to payment of 20% of the demand. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for a stay of recovery, citing high-pitched demand and disallowed expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer should pass an order on the stay application, followed by an opportunity to approach the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was urged to consider the representation in light of Circular No.1914 and case law guidelines, including the Flipkart case. The Revenue argued that the petition was premature, but assured consideration of the representation in accordance with the law and circulars. The Court observed that intervening in the assessment order at that stage was inappropriate due to the pending appeal. However, it emphasized the meaningful consideration of the petitioner's request for stay by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, referencing Circular No.1914 and relevant case laws. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the disposal of the representation and limited the attachment of the bank account to a specific amount. The Court instructed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide on the petitioner's representation within a week of the petitioner's appearance, failing which the attachment would be automatically vacated. The judgment was accordingly disposed of, keeping all contentions of the parties open for further consideration.
|
