9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the year under consideration. The assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 36,18,26,520. One of the major additions was that of disallowance of Rs. 16,63,01,800 out of total administrative expenses of Rs. 27,59,36,430. The assessee-company did not have its own marketing set-up and hence had entered into an agreement with Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (SBCH). In order to compensate SBCH for the services rendered by them, the agreement was reached on the basis of an independent study made by Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. (PWC) to arrive at arm s length basis of payment. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that since both the companies belonged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union of India 1992 (59) ELT 505 to contend that the revenue cannot make recovery till the time-limit to file further appeal has not expired. Thus, the prayer was that the amount of tax collected illegally should be refunded to the assessee. The learned DR, after hearing the learned counsel, requested for some time to get more inputs from the Assessing Officer. In any case, referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), it was submitted that the facts in this year were somewhat different than in the earlier years as regards administrative expenses and hence the stay should not be granted. 4. We have heard the parties. At this juncture, we are not expected to express any opinion on the merits of the issues involved. However, considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not proceed to recover its dues till the assessee has time to file a further appeal. When the assessee is aware of its right of further appeal, he also has a right to reasonably expect that the revenue authorities will not pounce upon him and destroy his right to appeal and ask for a stay. This proposition is enshrined in the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectation. This doctrine was well explained by the Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Jt. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 299 (Mum.) where a similar situation had arisen and the Tribunal was constrained to direct the revenue to refund the amount recovered to the assessee. In the present case, after the completion of the assessment, instead of the customary 30 days, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
