9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELHI HIGH COURT - Income Tax – Held that:- when the assessed income is more then double of the returned income then the demand should be stayed till the decision of appeal - it is apparent that while deciding the stay application, the Assistant Collector has not taken into consideration the judgment and circulars cited by the petitioner - quash the order remanding to the Assistant Collector of Income Tax to consider the stay application afresh by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also by taking into consideration judgments and circulars cited by the petitioner – in favour of assessee. - S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2012 - GOVIND MATHUR, J. Suresh Ojha for the Petitioner. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with UIT for payment of outstanding demand. In view of these facts, you are requested to make 50% payment of outstanding demand by 27.01.2012 positively and show the challan in lieu of payment on 27.01.2012 so that the balance demand may be considered to be paid installment. It may also be mentioned here that if 50% demand is not paid by 27.01.2012, coercive action for recovery of demand will be taken against you." 3. Being aggrieved by this order instant petition for writ is preferred. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner while passing the order dated 23.1.2012 has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court and also the mandatory circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 2nd December, 1993 may arise which specifically states that it is in supersession of all earlier instruction. But in the case of the assessee these instructions are not applicable. The case of His Late Highness Maharaja Shri Bhagwat Singh ji of Mewar ( Supra ) is decided in 1996 i.e. after the issue of the instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd December 1993 and so the decision of jurisdictional High Court is still applicable. Otherwise also the view of the assessee is supported by the recent judgment of the honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Soul v. Deputy Commissioner of Income reported in (2010) 323 ITR 305 in which the honourable High Court in Para 9 of the order have observed as under:- "9. Having considered the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was of the view that was high pitched. In the present case, the assessed income is approximately 74 time the returned income and obviously, this would fall within the expression "unreasonably high pitched." From the above you will please see that the Central Board of Direct Taxes have used the word 'should be held in abeyance' and so it automatic that when the assessed income is more then double of the returned income then the demand should be stayed till the decision of appeal." 4. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that while deciding the stay application, the Assistant Collector has not taken into consideration the judgment and circulars cited by the petitioner. 5. Having considered all the facts of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
