9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner has placed on record a Memo showing the actual amount in dispute for the subject assessment years, as well as the amounts recovered based on refund orders, which figures are not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The said Memo is marked “X” for identification. In view of the above, the impugned notices dated 16th January, 2017 and 17th January, 2017 issued to the State Bank of India, ICICI Bank Ltd., and HDFC Bank under Section 226(3) of the Act in respect of the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are quashed and set aside. - Decided n favour of assessee - WRIT PETITION NO. 117/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - F.M. REIS NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Subsequently, on or about 24th April, 2014, and 24thApril, 2015, for the two Assessment Years, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, the petitioner preferred appeals before the CIT (Appeals) which are pending for disposal. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, on 3rd January, 2017 the respondent No.1 issued a letter to the petitioner stating that a demand of ₹ 40.25 Crores is outstanding for various assessment years, which included the aforesaid demand. A detailed response was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, stating that the recovery of ₹ 10.74 Crores has already been made, which, according to the petitioner is far in excess of the 15% set by the CBDT vide its Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 and the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondents are not at all justified to pass the impugned directions, attaching the accounts of the petitioner as, according to him, more than 15 % of the disputed demand has already been secured in favour of the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that though the appeal is pending before the CIT (Appeals), the respondent No.1 has erroneously proceeded to attach the said Bank Accounts of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that this grievance of the petitioner is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Andrew Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. On the other hand, Ms. Linhares, learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
