9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me claiming deduction under Section 10(B) of the Income Tax Act. On 30.12.2010 the first respondent passed an order of assessment disallowing the claim of petitioner company under Section 10(B) of the Act as per Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the order of assessment at Annexure-B petitioner company filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Bangalore. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be partly allowed on 24.08.2012 holding that assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 10(B) of the Act. The first respondent by giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Appeals issued communication on 19.10.2012 as per Annexure-A1 specifying that petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.14,24,54,020/- and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther 248 ITR 607 had the occasion to interpret Section 245 of the Act as under: Section 245 of the Act reads as under: "Where under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under this Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under this section." A reading of the section would indicate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be bad in law. This is the consistent view of other High Courts as well. A reference may be made to the following judgments. The Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar Bhati v. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 110, while interpreting section 245 held (headnote): "For the purpose of any set off under section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of any refund due to the assessee an intimation in writing has to be given to the assessee of the action proposed to be taken under section 245. Any order of set off purporting to be made without any such intimation is neither fair, nor just, nor reasonable and has to be ignored." Similarly, the High Court of Calcutta in J.K. Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve of the petitioner company, the assessing officer permitted the petitioner company to pay the demand as under: * First installment - payment of Rs.10 Crore by March 30, 2012. * Second installment - payment of Rs.1.5 Crore each month starting from April until disposal of appeal by CIT(A) or fulfillment of total demand whichever is earlier. 8. Accordingly the petitioner company made payment of first installment of Rs.10 Crore and paid two monthly installments for the month of June and July 2012. Thereafter the petitioner company failed to pay the further installments. Again on 20.11.2012, the petitioner company filed a stay application before the first respondent - assessing officer on the basis of a circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion with the authorized representative of the petitioner company permitted them to pay the demand on monthly installments. Accordingly, the petitioner company made certain payments and subsequently failed to honour or to pay the installments. By taking this into consideration, the first respondent rejected the stay application holding that the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the circular No.530 and instruction no.1914. Again this reasoning of the first respondent is in accordance with law. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, a direction is required to be issued to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-2009 within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
