9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal. The same are pending adjudication before this Court. 2. During the pendency of this litigation, the petitioner received compensation in three instalments of ₹ 4 lakhs (1987), ₹ 16.40 lakhs (1990) and ₹ 3.60 lakhs (1992). This amount was deposited by him under the Capital Gains Scheme, 1988. 3. For the assessment year 1991-92, the petitioner filed his return and claimed that the amount of ₹ 16,40,160 is not liable to be taxed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Housing Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524/27 Taxman 450A. However, the assessing authority did not accept the contention and assessed ₹ 9,90,165 out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending. 5. On 15-1-1996, the petitioner applied for refund of the amount in view of the order dated 5-1-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). His plea for refund has been rejected by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of the High Court for issuance of a writ to quash the impugned orders and also to direct the respondents to refund the amount to him. The petitioner has relied on the provisions of sections 240 and 241 of the Act and the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Leader Valves (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 542/ 33 Taxman 119 and Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1987 (2) PLR 47. The respondents have opposed the plea of the petitioner by asserting that the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section (1) of section 142 and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion, having regard to the fact that- (i) a notice has been issued, or is likely to be issued, under sub-section (2) of section 143 in respect of the said return; or (ii) the order is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceedings; or (iii) any other proceeding under this Act is pending, that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue, the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, withhold the refund till such time as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may determine. 7. A conjoint reading of the provisions quoted above shows that in the ordinary circumstances the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground of pendency of the proceedings is clearly indicative of the intention of the Legislature that pendency of proceedings will not by itself be a ground for withholding the refund. 8. This view of ours is supported by the two judgments of this Court in Leader Valves (P.) Ltd. s case (supra) and Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. s case (supra). 9. A look at the impugned order shows that the only ground on which the refund has been withheld is the pendency of the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal and nothing else. The respondents have tried to support the action of withholding on the basis of the report Annexure-R. 1 sent by the ITO, Ward-II(4), Ludhiana but Shri Mittal pointed out that the assertion made in para 2 of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
