9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said order, an amount of 144,08,49,460/- has been adjusted. After adjustment, the balance amount was stayed for a period of 6 months or upto the decision of the first appeal, whichever is earlier. After passing of such order, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was finalized on 28.12.2016. The order under Section 220(6) of the Act as well as the intimation under Section 245 of the Act was issued by the same Assessing Officer. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Officer should have modified its order of 12.09.2016 before the order of adjustment is not tenable as the order of stay was not passed by any other superior authority but by the Assessing Officer himself. Quashing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessment Year 2012-13 against the tax demands raised for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Some facts are required to be mentioned. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short "Tribunal") vide order dated 03.06.2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee, the present petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13. As a consequence of said order, an amount of ₹ 899,83,91,210/- became refundable to the petitioner. It was on 05.01.2007, the Assessing Officer (The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Jabalpur) served a notice on the assessee in terms of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act (for short "the Act") proposing to set off the amount of refund against the tax demand of ₹ 729.33 Crores due f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ---------------------------------------- F.No.ACTT/C-2(1)/JBP/Stay of Demand /2016-17 / Dated 12.09.2016 To, The Northern Coalfields Ltd., Panjresh Bhawan, Singrauli Colliery, District Sidhi. Sir, Sub: Application for stay of demand of A.Y. 2013-14 regarding. Ref: Please refer to your letter regarding stay of demand for A.Y. 2013-14, dated 22.03.2016-reg. Kindly refer to the subject cited above. In this connection, it is to state that the stay petition filed by you vide your letter dated 22.03.2016 is re-considered. It has been verified that the first appeal in this case is pending before Hon'ble CTT-(A-II), Jabalpur. Demand raised u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration is ₹ 873,41,98,340/- and ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Year 2012-13. Infact, the Tribunal has consistently set aside the demand raised against the petitioner from the Assessment Year 1998-99. 6. On behalf of the Revenue, it is pointed out that the orders passed by the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Years have not attained finality and are pending consideration in appeals before this Court. The following are the appeals pending in respect of earlier Assessment Years including the appeal arising out of order of the Tribunal pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13: "MAIT 79/2004, MAIT 80/2004, ITA 71/2014, ITA 72/2014, ITA 70/2015, ITA 74/2015, ITA 75/2015, ITA 76/2015, ITA 77/2015, ITA 78/2015 and ITA 79/2015" 7. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the legality and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Quashing of the order results in restoration of the position as stood on the date of passing of the order which has been quashed but the stay of operation of the order does not however lead to such a result. In view thereof, the order of Assessing Officer not to recover the demand for the Assessment Year does not lead to setting aside of the demand itself. The said demand could very well be adjusted against the refund due for the previous year 2012-13. 9. Similarly, the assessment was completed for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28.12.2016. The demand for recovery of the tax due was issued on 13.01.2017 giving time to the assessee to deposit the tax due within 30 days. Such demand notice is for the recovery of the amount which is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds but may not grant stay of adjustment of refund. However, when an order of stay of recovery is simplistic and absolute terms is passed, it would be improper and inappropriate on the part of the Revenue to recover the demand by way of adjustment. In case of doubt or ambiguity, an application for clarification or vacation/modification of stay to allow adjustment can be, and should be filed. But no attempt should be made and it should not appear that the Revenue has tried to overreach and circumvent the stay order . Obedience and compliance with the stay order in letter and spirit is mandatory. A stay order passed by an appellate/higher authority must be respected. No deviancy or breach should be made. We do not, in the present case, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
