9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eps to challenge this demand. The respondent had, therefore, initiated garnishee proceedings and attached the Bank accounts of the petitioner with the Indian Bank and ICICI Bank . Admittedly, the appeal challenging the assessment is still pending disposal and in the earlier writ petitions [ 2022 (12) TMI 1400 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] , [ 2022 (12) TMI 1401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] this Court had quashed the demand and directed the respondent to reconsider and pass speaking orders. It is also seen that the entire amounts demanded, namely 20% of the disputed tax, interest and penalty has been withdrawn by the respondent from the bank accounts of the petitioner. This Court feels that the interest of justice would be met, if the respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds and he has been regularly and diligently reporting the income in his returns under the following heads from the year 2011-2012 onwards. a) net profit from the petrol bunk business; and b) interest from savings bank ICICI SB account. The petitioner was claiming exemption in respect of the following amounts. a) NRE receipts; b) interest from NRE accounts and c) LIC benefits. 4. It is his further case that the NRE receipts vis-a-vis the capital account from the Malaysian hotel business has been increasing since 2011. The petitioner would submit that being an NRI, he was always shuttling between Malaysia and India. In this process, by oversight, when the returns were filed for the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That apart, he was also running a hotel in Malaysia. The petitioner had enclosed all the relevant documents for the scrutiny of the respondent. Despite producing the details and proof as also the explanation, the respondent has passed the assessment order on 31.05.2021 imposing tax liability of Rs.5,18,36,412/- and interest of Rs.2,26,97,456/-. This tax liability along with interest of Rs.7,42,62,087/- had been imposed arbitrarily. The respondent had also issued a penalty order dated 24.07.2021 under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Against this order, the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal under Section 246(A) of the Act on 19.01.2022. 7. Meanwhile, the petitioner by letter dated 08.02.2022 had requested the respondent to stay the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions challenging the attachment orders in W.P.(MD) Nos.27059 to 27062 of 2022 were also taken up on the very same day and it was held that the attachment orders wold be vacated, if no order is passed regarding the demand on or before 28.02.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 20.12.2022 to the respondent to grant stay on the grounds raised in the appeal as well as in the letter. Once again, by order dated 21.12.2022, the respondent has demanded 20% of the disputed amount, which is totally a sum of Rs.1,42,52,917/- as well as 100% of the undisputed demand amounting to Rs.51,97,684/-. It is this order that is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 11. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
