9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Soparkar, Mrs. Kalpanak Raval, Dharmishta Raval For the Respondent : Mr. Pranav G. Desai JUDGMENT (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1. RULE. Shri Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assessee has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction, order quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by respondent No.1 [at Annexure A to the petition] as well as the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.2. 3. Facts leading to the present special civil application in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the AO for Assessment Year 201011 dated 20.03.2013 with respect to the tax liability of ₹ 12,19,04,650/-, the petitioner assessee had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which is pending fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1 crore as directed by the Commissioner and the second installment of ₹ 1 crore was to be deposited on or before 31.03.2014, by impugned communication dated 27.03.2014, the AO has informed the petitioner assessee that in view of the directions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot, the stay granted earlier has been withdrawn, and the petitioner assessee was called upon to pay the balance demand by 20.03.2014 failing which coercive recovery measures would be taken to recover the said demand. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication/order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 - AO, the petitioner assessee has preferred the present special civil application. 4. Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing with Mrs. Kalpana Raval and Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned communication dated 27.03.2014 by the AO is absolutely illegal and most arbitrary. It is submitted that as such the petitioner did deposit the amount which was required to be deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. It is submitted that as such the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the learned CIT(A) cannot be attributable to the petitioner assessee at all. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 27.03.2014. 4.2 It is further submitted that as such the petitioner is required to challenge the communication dated 03.03.2014 because of the ambiguity in language used by the Commissioner, on one hand the petitioner assessee was directed to pay ₹ 2 crores before the end of the financial year as per the discussion on 21.02.2014 and on the other hand the petitioner assessee is threatened that coercive measures shall be taken. 4.3 Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the Bar that subject to cooperation by the AO, the petitioner assessee is ready and willing and was ready and willing to cooperate learned CIT(A) in early disposal of the appeal preferred by them. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present special civil application and quash and set aside the impugned communications more particularly the communication at AnnexureA dated 27.03.2014. 5. In response to the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner assessee in default with respect to the demand raised by the AO pursuant to the assessment order. That the AO passed an order dated 26.11.2013 directing the petitioner assessee to make the payment of ₹ 3.25 crores by 31.01.2014 in three installments dated 30.11.2013, 31.12.2013 and 31.01.2014 and passed an order that on such deposit the petitioner assessee shall not be treated in default. It appears that while passing an order dated 26.11.2013 the AO did observe that the said order will be reviewed again in the first week of February 2014 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot. We do not appreciate such direction and/or observation by the AO while passing the order under Section 220(6) of the Act to the extent that the said order will be reviewed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot. Be that as it may, thereafter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot reviewed the matter and instructed/directed the petitioner assessee to deposit a further sum of ₹ 2 crores by the end of financial year i.e. on or before 31.03.2014 to be paid in two installments. It is not in dispute that as such the petitioner had deposited the furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before 31.03.2014. Under the guise of recovery of maximum amount of tax on or before 31.03.2014, there may not be any coercive action to recover the amount of tax which otherwise is not permissible under the law. Under the circumstances, the reason given by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot to issue the instructions to the AO to withdraw the stay and initiate the recovery proceedings for recovery of the balance amount of demand on the basis of which the impugned communication dated 27.03.2014 is issued by the AO, cannot be sustained. 6.1 Now, so far as the challenge to the communication dated 03.03.2014 is concerned, it appears that there is some misconception on the part of the petitioner. From the impugned communication dated 03.03.2014, it cannot be said that the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot has observed that despite the payment of ₹ 2 crores before the end of the financial year as discussed with the AR on 21.02.2014, coercive step shall be taken to recover the balance demand. What is meant seems to be that on nonpayment of the amount of ₹ 2 crores before the end of the financial year as discussed with the AR on 21.02.2014 immediately, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
