9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner Nos.2 and 3 who are liable to be taxed - HELD THAT:- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.3 herein, on 28.02.2018 itself. For reasons best known to him, he is yet to decide the said matter. It is only upon examining the case of the petitioners by respondent No.3, it can be concluded whether petitioner No.1 is an association of person, who is liable to tax or not. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for respondent No.4 to demand 20% of the alleged dues as late as in the year 2022 and the same is liable to be set aside. The demand of respondent No.4 as against petitioner No.1 is hereby set aside - Respondent No.3 Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2012-2013. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after considering the case of the petitioners was pleased to remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 by its order dated 28.02.2018. Since then, the matter is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6. Thereafter, on 04.03.2022, the respondent No.4 has raised a demand vide Annexure J to the writ petition which reads as under:- Sir/Madam/M/s, Subject: Proceedings under Second Schedule of Income-tax Act Letter Sub: Recovery of Income-Tax arrears in the case of your own for the A.Y s.2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17- PAN-AABAM1277H Request for payment of 20% of the demand. Ref: This office letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cceed, the amount to be paid by them as per the demand would be adjusted for future transactions or refunded as the case may be. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.3 herein, on 28.02.2018 itself. For reasons best known to him, he is yet to decide the said matter. It is only upon examining the case of the petitioners by respondent No.3, it can be concluded whether petitioner No.1 is an association of person, who is liable to tax or not. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for respondent No.4 to demand 20% of the alleged dues as late as in the year 2022 and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
