9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object of providing education, training, research and related infrastructure in various branches of health sciences and working for the advancement of scientific knowledge aimed at enhancing the quality of patient care. It has been filing income tax returns and claiming exemption of its entire income under Section 11 of the Act. The registration of the petitioner under Section 12AA was cancelled by the CIT by order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner preferred appeal thereagainst and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar allowed the same on 29.09.2015. This order is stated to have attained finality. For the assessment year 2006-07, the total demand of Rs. 20,77,10,765/- on account of tax, penalty and interest had been raised by the Department whereagainst appeals ITA Nos.271 and 274 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner, are pending adjudication before this Court. After the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner under Section 12AA of the Act, the assessments of the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2010-11 were re-opened and total demand of Rs. 72,19,07,560/- was raised. The appeals are stated to be pending before the CIT (Appeal). For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rishnan and others reported as (2001) 251 ITR 158. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction should not entertain petitions seeking stay of recovery of demand. He has also contended that in other cases pertaining to the different assessment years, the petitioner had deposited 15% of the amount and hence stay was granted in its favour. The petitioner has not deposited any amount towards demand for the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore, in terms of office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 issued by the CBDT, the demand could not be stayed without the deposit of 15%. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., and others reported as (1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanav Khanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others reported as (2014) 366 ITR 386 (P&H) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Air Transport Co. (Regd.) v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others reported as 1994 (207) ITR 487 (MP). 4. At the outset we deem it app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a review petition has been filed by the assessee under para 4 (C) above, the same shall also be disposed of by the Pr. CIT/CIT within 2 weeks of the assessing officer making such reference or the assessee filing such review, as the case may be. (E) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. He may, inter alia,- (i) require an undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled; (ii) reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period (say 6 months) or if the assessee has not cooperated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations; (iii) reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section 245." 5. From the reading of the modified guidelines, it is clear that in normal circumstances, the appellate authority would grant stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal upon payment of 15%. It has been envisaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal has expired. Generally, coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the statute to go in appeal. However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order. (e) We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No.2 herein need not once again give reasoned order. 7. The above parameters are not exhaustive. They are only recommendatory in nature." 7. We are in agreement with these parameters and are of the considered view that the assessing/appellate authorities in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh should also follow these guidelines while deciding cases for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal. 8. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that no reasons whatsoever have been mentioned while rejecting the case of the petitioner for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the instant case. In the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., and others (supra), it has not been laid out as an absolute proposition that writ court should not grant stay. It has been held that normally the High Court shall not grant stay which could be granted in exceptional circumstances. We have already spelt out the exceptional circumstances which warrant interfering with the impugned order. 12. The judgment in the case of Kanav Khanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others (supra) is clearly distinguishable as it pertains to an assessee who had claimed exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that acquired land was agricultural seeking stay of demand during pendency of appeal. It has been noted therein that the agricultural income for the land in question before the acquisition was shown as nil in the income tax return. It was in such circumstances that the Division Bench of this Court had declined to interfere with the order rejecting application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal. 13. In the case of Air Transport Co. (Regd.) v. Income Tax Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
