9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rementioned OMs, the assessee s case falls in the situation captured in para 4B (a). No material has been furnished by the respondent/revenue which would suggest that the petitioner/assessee s case would fall within 4(B)(a). Given this position, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents/revenue to release the amount, along with applicable interest, which is in excess of 20% of the disputed demand, concerning the aforementioned AYs. We may also note (something we have recorded in our order dated 14.07.2023), according to the petitioner/assessee, the excess amount which is available with the respondents/revenue. Respondents/revenue will make their own calculation and ascertain whether the amount indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ]. (iii) Third, the adjustment has been made without passing an order, as required in law under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. In this regard, it is submitted that a mere intimation was given on 02.03.2023. 4 We may note, that the adjustment which has been made, amounts to Rs. 40,09,91,031/-. 4.1 Resultantly, the petitioner was released with regard to the refund claimed vis-a-vis AY 2022-23 i.e., Rs. 52,78,60,069/-. 5. The petitioner, via this writ action, claims the balance amount i.e., Rs. 32,07,13,625/- along with applicable interest, which is the amount in excess of 20% of the disputed demand concerning the aforementioned AYs. 5.1 Mr Vohra, in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hical error has crept in paragraph 2 of the order, wherein, instead of AY 2013-14, what should have been included is AY 2014-15. 2.1. The order dated 14.07.2023 shall stand corrected to the aforesaid extent. 3. Admittedly, no counter-affidavit has been filed. 4. We have asked Mr Shailendera Singh, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, as to whether the facts and circumstances adverted to in our order dated 14.07.2023 are disputed. 4.1 Mr Singh says that although the facts and events recorded in the order dated 14.07.2023 are not disputed, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ] so that an appropriate order c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief, is extracted hereafter: Respected Madam, With reference to the DIN Notice no. ITBA/RCV/S/221/2022-23/1046009252(1) dated 27.09.2022 under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding outstanding demand. In this regards, it is submitted that A.Y. 2006-07 Demand u/s 271(1(c) The penalty has been deleted vide order u/s 154 r.w.s. 254/271(1(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.07.2020 but demand has not been deleted at income tax portal. Therefore, your honour is requested to kindly arrange to delete the demand at income tax portal. A.Y. 2007-08 Demand u/s 271(1(c) The assessee company has filed letter for appeal effect. There is refund due to the assessee company instead of demand. Therefore, your honour is requeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for AY 2022-23, against the disputed demands for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15 was not only hasty, but was also contrary to law. 10. Under the Office Memorandum ( OM ) dated 29.02.2016, as amended by OM dated 31.07.2017, the AO should have, ordinarily, in terms of para 4A adjusted not more than 20% of the disputed demand, considering the fact that an appeal concerning the disputed demand was, admittedly, pending before the CIT(A). Higher amount can only be retained, only if, as per the aforementioned OMs, the assessee s case falls in the situation captured in para 4B (a). 10.1. No material has been furnished by the respondent/revenue which would suggest that the petitioner/assessee s case would fall within 4(B)(a). 1 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
