9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 209 of 2017, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the first respondent dated 27.3.2017, by which, the first respondent, while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for stay of the entire demand as quantified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, accepted the offer given by the petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs. 50 lakhs per month till 15% of the demand is collected or the first appeal is decided, whichever is earlier. 4. As against the assessment orders for those two years, the petitioner filed appeals before the third respondent. It appears that the appeal petitions were to be heard by the third respondent and the first hearing notice was issued on 14.2.2017 for three assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng paid and out of Rs. 129 crores, a sum of Rs. 125 Crores has been shown in the return of income filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that so far as the assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 12,90,960/- and this has not been adjusted by the Department. 7. The assessments for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the matters have been remanded to the second respondent - Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is also submitted that these amounts have be eschewed from the total demand and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the first respondent. 8. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue would contend that the factua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the petitioner to pay the arrears in monthly instalments of Rs. 50 lakhs till 15% of the demand is collected. The Assessing Officer was directed to withdraw the attachment of the assessee's bank accounts and debtors attachments. However, the petitioner did not keep up their commitment and they were able to pay only a sum of Rs. 3.5 Crores. 11. After the impugned order was passed, which is based on the concession given by the first respondent, once again, the petitioner approached the first respondent by way of representation dated 05.7.2017 expressing their financial difficulties and seeking stay of the collection of taxes. This representation is now pending. Subsequently, another representation has been given on 20.9.2017 seeking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
