TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal for the petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by J.P. Devadhar, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 12-1-2009 passed by the CIT (A), whereby while fixing the appeals for hearing on 4-2-2009, the CIT (A) has disposed of the stay applications by directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the demands raised for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07 by 30-1-2009 and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs by 27 th of every month till the appeals are heard and disposed of. 3. The petitioner - trust which was estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the students which are not accounted and are siphoned of by the principal trustee in violation of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act. By the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to pay 10% of the demand (approximately 1.50 crores) by 30-1-2009 and thereafter Rs.50,00,000/- by the 27 th of each succeeding month till the disposal of the appeal. 7. Mr. Mistry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the C.I.T. (A) having fixed the appeals for final hearing on 4-2-2009 ought to have stayed the demands till the disposal of the appeals. He submitted that the petitioner - trust duly registered under Section 12A of the Act is exempted from payment of tax. However, high-pitched assessments have been made by ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e donations have in fact been received, making additions on account of donations by recasting the account is wholly unjustified. In these circumstances, especially when the appeals are fixed for hearing on 4-2-2009, he submitted that the C.I.T. (A) ought to have stayed the demand till the disposal of the appeals. 9. Mr. Mistry submitted that by the impugned order, the C.I.T. (A) has directed payment of Rs.1.5 crores by 30-1-2009 and if that order is enforced, it would cripple the operations of the petitioner and adversely affect the career of over 36,500 students and more than 5000 employees. He submitted that the cash and bank balance of the petitioner as on 17-1-2009 was Rs.1.18 crores whereas the liabilities as on 17-1-2009 was Rs.40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of C.E. V/s. Dunlop India Limited reported in 154 I.T.R. 172. Accordingly, Mr.Gupta submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Although the assessments for all the assessment years from 1999-2000 to 2006-2007 have been passed on 7-8-2008, the assessments for A.Y. 2005-2006 and A.Y. 2006-2007 are not comparable with the assessments made for A.Y. 1999-2000 to A.Y. 2004-2005. Therefore, absolute stay granted for those years have no bearing while dealing with the stay applications for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07. 12. Perusal of the assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07 shows that the addition of Rs.22.45 crores has been made as undisclosed income on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All these questions are required to be considered at the final hearing of the appeals which is scheduled on 4-2-2009. 14. Even though the appeals are scheduled to be heard on 4-2-2009, since the petitioner is disputing the correctness of the endorsements made on the seized documents, disposal of the said appeals is bound to take time. In the meantime, whether the petitioner should be directed to deposit the tax as ordered by the C.I.T. (A) is the question before us. 15. It is contended by the petitioner that every document seized during the course of search has been properly explained. However, in the absence of any specific statement made before the A.O. or in the writ petition to the effect that no donation has been received or wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was relating to the excise duty payable on clearance of the goods manufactured. The High Court had allowed clearance of the goods subject to furnishing a bank guarantee. In that context, while setting aside the order of the High Court, the Apex Court held that in matters of public revenue the interim order ought not to be granted on mere prima facie grounds. In the case before us, the dispute is regarding the income allegedly earned by the petitioner and the liability to tax income at the hands of the petitioner trust having registration under Section 12A of the Act. Moreover, the instruction / circular issued by the Board empowers the tax authorities to grant total stay of demand in appropriate cases till the disposal of the appeal. Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|