2021 (12) TMI 569 - HC - Income Tax

Stay on recovery proceedings - outstanding demand for second quarter of Financial Year 2021-22 - HELD THAT - Revenue accepts notice. He admits that there has been an error on the part of the Assessing Officer in not deciding the petitioner s request/application dated 22 nd November, 2021. He assures this Court that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall decide the petitioner s request/application in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Concentrix Services Netherlands B V 2021 (4) TMI 1051 - DELHI HIGH COURT as well as petitioner s own case 2021 (6) TMI 379 - DELHI HIGH COURT within four weeks. The assurance/undertaking given by learned counsel for Revenue/Respondents is accepted by this Court and the Revenue/Respondents are held bound by the same. Till the order is passed by the Assessing Officer, the impugned demand shall not be given effect to.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking to quash intimation/order cum deemed demand notice under Income Tax Act, stay recovery proceedings for disputed outstanding demand.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the intimation/order cum deemed demand notice issued by Respondent No.4 under the Income Tax Act, raising a demand and seeking a stay on recovery proceedings for a disputed outstanding demand of ?1,84,78,190 for the second quarter of Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that despite a favorable judgment in Concentrix Services Netherlands B V vs. Income Tax Officer TDS & Anr., and in their own case, neither the Centralized Processing Centre nor the Assessing Officer had decided on their rectification application. The court issued a notice, and the Revenue's counsel admitted an error on the part of the Assessing Officer for not deciding the petitioner's request/application. The counsel assured the court that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer would decide on the petitioner's application within four weeks, in line with the previous judgments. The court accepted the assurance and held the Revenue bound by it, directing that the impugned demand shall not be enforced until the Assessing Officer's decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, recording the undertaking and direction given by the Revenue's counsel.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely decision-making by the Assessing Officer in response to rectification applications, as mandated by court judgments. It underscores the principle that taxpayers should not suffer due to administrative delays or oversights in tax proceedings. The court's intervention in ensuring compliance with its previous rulings demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of taxpayers in matters concerning tax demands and recovery proceedings. The acceptance of the Revenue's counsel's undertaking and the direction issued by the court serve as a mechanism to ensure accountability and adherence to legal standards in the implementation of tax laws. Overall, the judgment reflects a balance between the interests of the taxpayer and the need for efficient tax administration, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal precedents in resolving tax disputes.