9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of assessee losing the battle, he will be bound to refund the amount to the Government - If he were to pay tax under the Act, when once that amount is returned, he would be entitled for refund of the said tax or adjustment of tax in future, but that does not enable him to withhold payment of tax on the pretext of pending litigation - In that view of the matter, the approach of the Tribunal is not proper - order requires to be set aside – appeal decided in favour of revenue. - ITA NO.1139/2006 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2013 - N Kumar And B Manohar, JJ. For the Appellant : K V Aravind, Adv. For the Respondent : S Parthasarathi, Adv. JUDGEMENT:- The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 1993-94 has escaped assessment. The proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated and reassessment was completed on 20-02-2002. In the said reassessment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the said sum of RS.2,06,33,600/- as revenue receipt. It was held as not contingent. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The Appellate Authority held that the assessee had declared the receipt of the said sum in its balance sheet showing it under the head sundry creditors. This is full and true disclosure and therefore, it cannot be treated as income escaped assessment. Further, it held that the assessee received the amount subject to the result of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was made to the assessee and the income has accrued and received by the assessee. Therefore, Section 4 of the Income Tax Act is attracted and the liability to pay tax on the income arises. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is incorrect and required to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that though the amount was received, challenging the same the public interest litigation was filed in this court. During the pendency of the said litigation, the Government itself withdrew the Circular under which, payment had been made and therefore, subsequently, the Government withdrew the benefit conferred on the assessee, which is of course now under challenge before the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition is dismissed and the matter is now pending in the writ appeal. The order withdrawing the said benefit is dated 18-9-2000 whereas the amount was received on 5-6-1992. For nearly 8 years, the assessee had the benefit of the said amount. Between the assessee and the revenue, there is no dispute. The dispute was raised by the 3rd party in the public interest litigation. The amount, which was paid to the assessee was definite and ascertained amount. Once the assessee receives the said amount, liability to pay tax under Section 4 of the Act is attracted. Mere pendency of the public interest litigation would not extinguish the liability of assessee to pay tax on the income received. The amount received by the assessee is not in pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
