9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the manufacture of crystal and artistic glass. The Assessing Officer has passed scrutiny assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Petitioner has filed the revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) before the Commissioner of Income-Tax. This was done in the year 2007. Against the orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Petitioner has filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The tax demand arising out of these assessment years would be close to Rs. 94 crores. All this while, the Petitioner had not deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or academic dismissal or abatement of the revisional proceedings. He further stated that the appeals were filed by the Petitioner on 22 April 2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) had called for remand report on 6 November 2013 which was also made by the Assessing Officer on 12 November 2014. Recently the Commissioner had heard the appeals in part on 6 February 2019 and has now fixed further hearing on 13 February 2019. In that view of the matter, Counsel submitted that recoveries be stayed till final disposal of the appeals by the Commissioner. Counsel submitted that for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2008-09, the appeals of the Petitioner are already allowed by the Appellate Commissioner. Issues being similar, the Petitioner would get simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in which such an application is made by the assessee for revision. Explanation to Sub-section (6) of Section 264 provides the manner of computing such period of limitation of one year. Nevertheless, there is no further consequence of the Commissioner not being able to pass an order on the revision petition within the time prescribed in Sub-Section (6) of Section 264. In absence of such specific statutory provision, dismissal or abatement of the revision petition cannot be inferred. Any other view, would be wholly unjust to litigant, who may file a revision petition and does not contribute in any manner for delay in disposal of revision petition, would be told that because the Commissioner could not dispose of the revision petition within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foist a rigid timeframe on the Appellate Commissioner for disposing of such appeals. The assessment orders are quite bulky. The Appellate Commissioner would, therefore, have to examine all aspects of facts and law arising out of such proceedings. Without ascertaining the workload and other responsibilities on him, we would not direct a timeframe for disposal of appeals. The question for providing an interim formula pending such appeals, therefore, arises. 10. We will not accept the submission of Mr. Chhotaray that in face of the instructions of the CBDT, this court cannot reduce the requirement of depositing 20% of tax pending appeals. Firstly, these instructions themselves recognise exceptions and areas where the demand can be reduced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
