9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Pending the same, they sought an order of stay, which was rejected for want of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax. Therefore, it is apparent that the assessment order passed by the respondent is neither quashed nor stayed by the Appellate Authority. Considering the grievances of the appellant, the learned Judge, while granting interim protection, has shown some indulgence by directing them to pay 20% of the demand raised, by way of installment, which in the opinion of this court, seems to be reasonable and warrants no interference. Having regard to the bona fide contentions raised on the side of the appellant that the livelihood of about 3200 fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 and all proceedings in furtherance thereof, and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and to consequently forbear the respondent and/or any of its subordinates, agents, representatives or any other person claiming under/through the respondent from in any manner taking any steps towards the recovery of any demand made pursuant to the assessment order passed by the respondent bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 2022/1032276622(1) passed under section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.04.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 for PAN: AAFFE1545F pending disposal of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3.The learned Judge, after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, making addition of Rs.13.67 crores twice, resulting in very huge demand on the appellant; further, the assessment order is in violation of section 144B of the Act; and hence, the same is void and non-est in law. The learned counsel further submitted that when the assessment order suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be quashed, the question of pre-deposit by the assessee, does not arise. However, by order dated 17.09.2021, the request of the appellant to stay the demand, was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant in order to prove its bona fide, had already paid Rs.25,00,000/ along with a letter dated 02.12.2021 to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, with an undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of remaining demand. Taking note of the plea of the appellant, the learned Judge granted interim protection with respect to attachment of the bank accounts of the appellant, subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs.30,00,000/- per month till the amount is paid and the first instalment and the first instalment shall commence on 05.01.2022; and only after the appellant pays the entire amount, the appeal shall be taken up for final hearing. Being dissatisfied with the order so passed in the writ petition, the appellant is before this court. 8.It is not in dispute that once the court finds the assessment order to be illegal and decides to set aside the same, there cannot be imposition of any condition; and the levy and col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
