9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 527 - HC - Income TaxStay petition - stay would be conditional on payment of 20% of the disputed demand - HELD THAT - The question of intervening as regards to the assessment order at this stage is not appropriate. However, as regards the contention that the consideration of application for stay and further exercise of power of the PCIT keeping in mind the circular bearing No.1914 as amended on 21.5.2017, 29.2.2016 and 31.7.2017, the request of the petitioner is to be considered in a meaningful manner. In fact, the power of granting stay has been considered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. Shriram Finance 2019 (3) TMI 1478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein, certain guidelines have been referred which may be taken note of. So also the manner of exercise of power of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is detailed in Flipkart s case 2017 (3) TMI 802 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT which needs to be kept in mind. This Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of contentions raised, but reiterates that the PCIT is to exercise power conferred upon him as per the circulars in a meaningful manner.
Issues:
1. Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order rejecting the request for stay. 2. Petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the appeal against the assessment order expeditiously. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the respondent's order rejecting the request for stay of the assessment order. The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked reasons and failed to consider the application for stay properly. The petitioner contended that the application should have been considered in line with Circular No.1914 and judicial precedents like the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Shriram Finance v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and this Court's decision in Flipkart India Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's counsel argued that the petition was premature as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had not yet decided on the petitioner's representation. The Court emphasized the need for a meaningful consideration of the stay application in accordance with relevant circulars and guidelines provided by previous judgments. 2. The Court noted that the appeal had been filed, making it inappropriate to intervene in the assessment order at that stage. However, it stressed the importance of considering the application for stay and exercising the power of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in line with Circular No.1914 and relevant dates of amendment. The Court referenced guidelines from the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Shriram Finance and detailed the exercise of power by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as outlined in Flipkart's case. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the contentions raised but emphasized the need for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider whether the assessment was unreasonably high or would cause genuine hardship to the assessee. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to review the petitioner's representation within a week from the petitioner's appearance before them, keeping all contentions open. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's directions based on legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
