Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 560 - AT - Income TaxStay of recovery of outstanding demand - assessee instead of depositing the amount as directed by the Tribunal, filed the present Applications seeking direction to the Assessing Officer to adjust outstanding refund of the earlier assessment years - Economic scenario and financial crises triggered by COVID19 pandemic - HELD THAT - Though, the Tribunal vide order dated 17/1/2020 directed the assessee to deposit the amount of ₹ 45,00,000/- (₹ 15,00,000/- for each assessment year) by 15/3/2020, keeping in view the depressed economic scenario and financial crises triggered by COVID19 pandemic we grant leverage to the assessee/applicant to comply with the condition mentioned in Para 5(i) of stay order dated 17/1/2020 by way of adjustment of refund due from the Department. AO is directed to adjust the remaining amount of ₹ 1,30,330/- for AY 2012-13 and ₹ 5,00,000/- for AY 2014-15 against the refund due to the assessee for AY 2008-09, if any and shall report the compliance to the Bench on the next date of hearing of the appeals. In case no refund for AY 2008-09 is due, the AO shall intimate the same to assessee and the assessee shall deposit the said balance amount forthwith and furnish proof of deposit of the amount before the Bench on the next date of hearing of the appeals i.e. 12/11/2020. The stay order shall come into force only after the entire amount as mentioned in stay order dated 17/01/2020 is deposited/adjusted. After the adjustment of refund/deposit of the amount by the assessee, as the case may be, the garnishee notices dated 13/01/2020 shall stand withdrawn by the Department.
Issues Involved:
Stay applications for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 seeking direction to adjust refund due against outstanding demand from earlier assessment years. Analysis: The assessee filed stay applications for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, seeking to adjust the refund due against outstanding demand from earlier assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12. The Tribunal had previously granted a stay of recovery of outstanding demand subject to certain conditions, including the payment of specific amounts by set deadlines. However, instead of complying with the Tribunal's order, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to adjust the refunds due for the earlier assessment years against the amount to be deposited as per the Tribunal's order. The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund for assessment year 2011-12 but did not adjust the refund for assessment year 2008-09 due to a change in the mode of refund. The assessee contended that the refund for assessment year 2008-09 should also be adjusted as per the Tribunal's order. The authorized representative reiterated the submissions made in the stay application and provided details of the refunds adjusted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had yet to deposit a deficit amount for certain assessment years and had a refund available for adjustment for assessment year 2008-09. Considering the economic challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal granted the assessee the option to adjust the refund due from the Department against the required deposit. The Assessing Officer was directed to adjust the remaining amounts against the refund due for assessment year 2008-09, if any. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance and directed the Assessing Officer to report the same. The Tribunal also highlighted the lackadaisical approach of Revenue Officers in the case and urged the Department to take corrective steps to avoid such situations in the future. In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's stay applications with specified adjustments and directives for compliance. The garnishee notices issued by the Department were to be withdrawn upon adjustment of refund or deposit of the required amount by the assessee. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the frequent change of Department Representatives and emphasized the need for better coordination and compliance with Tribunal directions to avoid delays and confusion in proceedings.
|