9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is entirely open for the Department to carry the challenge against the order of Appellate Commissioner before the Tribunal. However, till such order is reversed by the Tribunal, the effect of such order would continue to apply. In view of the Appellate order, which is in force presently, the Department cannot take a stand that such order has no binding effect or that said order should be ignored for the purpose of deciding the condition of deposit of tax pending Appeal. ORDER: (i) There shall be unconditional stay against the recovery of tax pending Appeals. (ii) If the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in case of Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust is reversed by the Tribunal, it would be open for the Principal Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 For The Petitioners : Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Atul Jasani For The Respondents : Mr. Sham Walve ORDER P.C .- These Petitions arise in the common background. They have been heard together and would be finally disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we may record facts from Writ Petition (L) No.810 of 2019. 2. The Petitioners have challenged an order dated 13/02/2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 Income Tax Officer and another order dated 05/03/2019 passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax. Under such orders, the Petitioners are directed to deposit 20% of the tax demand arising out of the order of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 making certain disallowances and additions in the hands of the assessee which has given rise to a tax demand of ₹ 6.69 crores (rounded off). Against such order of assessment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.1.2019. Pending such appeal, the petitioner first requested the Assessing Officer to keep tax demand in abeyance. The Assessing Officer passed an order on 13.2.2019 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand, upon which the rest of the recovery would be stayed. The petitioner thereupon approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and requested for full waiver of recovery. The Commissioner rejected such a petition by the impugned order dated 5.3.2019. Against this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant consideration in deciding the application for stay. 5. In the present case, prima facie, the Revenue is unable to point out any material change in the facts or law on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the additions. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue opposed these Petitions contending that the Respondent - authorities have passed orders which are in consonance with the CBDT s circular. The Petitioners have not made out any case for interference. 5. Having thus heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears an undisputed position that the ground on which the Assessing Officer has made additions in the order of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay against the recovery of tax pending Appeals. (ii) If the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in case of Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust is reversed by the Tribunal, it would be open for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to impose a suitable condition for the Assessee to deposit tax pending Appeals, which order shall be passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. (iii) The Petitioners shall not contribute to any delay in disposal of the Appeals. If in the opinion of the Department, the Petitioners are responsible for delay in disposal of the Appeals, it would be open for the Department to apply for recalling this order. (iv) With these dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
