9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 281 for a response that is speculative, predicated on imponderables and unknowns such as litigation outcomes, or on suppositions that all stay orders obtained by an assessee are bound to be vacated and an assessee’s appeals lost. Nothing in our experience suggests this to be remotely true. We have considered Mr. Pardiwala’s submission in regard to the tenability of the impugned order. We agree with him that it cannot be sustained for the precise reasons we have outlined, and which we find unacceptable. There is no discussion on the merits of any particular application, proposed transfer or individual asset. Hence, keeping the contentions of both sides open, and without rendering a decision on the merits of the application by the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of the Revenue, and, specifically to guard against fraudulent transfers designed to defeat recovery by the revenue. There are almost exactly parallel provisions in the Companies Act. Section 281 of the Income Tax Act reads thus : SECTION 281 CERTAIN TRANSFERS TO BE VOID (1) Where, during the pendency of any proceedings under this Act or after the completion thereof, but before the service of notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule, any assessee creates a charge on, or parts with the possession (by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever) of any of his assets in favour of any other person, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imponderables and unknowns such as litigation outcomes, or on suppositions that all stay orders obtained by an assessee are bound to be vacated and an assessee s appeals lost. Nothing in our experience suggests this to be remotely true. 5. We have considered Mr. Pardiwala s submission in regard to the tenability of the impugned order. We agree with him that it cannot be sustained for the precise reasons we have outlined, and which we find unacceptable. There is no discussion on the merits of any particular application, proposed transfer or individual asset. 6. Hence, keeping the contentions of both sides open, and without rendering a decision on the merits of the application by the Petitioner, we will set aside the impugned order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of encumbrance on them, while the remaining are not so encumbered. We have noted this not with a view to predetermine the 1st Respondent s decision, but to assist the 1st Respondent in more precisely formulating and identifying the information and documentation that he requires, and also to draw attention to the wording of Section 281 and the circular. Therefore, once the Petitioners application specifies an asset, its value and the nature of the proposed transaction or charge, it will be for the 1st Respondent to assess why that particular asset or transaction should or should not be denied permission. At the cost of repetition, it will not be open to the 1st Respondent to generally say that no proposed transaction or charge over any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
