Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (2) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... directed the Petitioner to pay vide order dated 17 April 2024. When this was pointed out even before the stay order was passed by the Petitioner vide letter dated 14 November 2023, the Respondents ought to have refunded the said amount of Rs. 6,05,030/- either on the Petitioner making application dated 14 November 2023 or at least while passing the stay order on 17 April 2024. Non consideration of this adjustment while arriving at the 20% outstanding demand for assessment year 2015-2016 is unjustified moreso in the present case when the assessee himself voluntarily made a payment of 20% much before filing of the stay application for assessment year 2015-2016. Provision of Section 250 (6A) of the Act which states that every appeal filed be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allenging the recovery of more than 20% of the tax demand for assessment year 2015-2016 from the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner is an individual and has filed his return of income on 28 September 2015 returning income of Rs. 56,65,660/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment and on 20 December 2017 an assessment order came to be passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") assessing income at Rs. 1,11,85,520/- and a demand of Rs. 37,91,550/- was made. 5. The Petitioner filed stay application for assessment year 2015- 2016 before the Assessing Officer requesting for stay of the demand raised vide order dated 20 December 2017. It is important to note that prior to making this application for s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accordance with law. 9. Mr. Gurjar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the revenue has recovered more than 20% of the demand for which the stay has been granted by the Assessing Officer. He submits that the Petitioner voluntarily made payment of 20% amounting to Rs. 7,58,310/- on 25 January 2018 even before the stay application was filed on 29 January 2018. Inspite of such a payment, the revenue adjusted the refund of assessment year 2022-2023 on 6 October 2022 amounting Rs. 6,05,030/-. Therefore, the department has recovered excess of Rs. 6,05,030/- and therefore, the revenue should be directed to refund the said amount being contrary to their own stay order dated 17 April 2024. 10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stay application is decided and which is in accordance with Instruction No. 1914 of the revenue, the least which could have been expected from the Respondents is not to adjust the refund for assessment year 2022-2023 against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 although the delay in adjudication of the stay order is not attributable to the Petitioner. 14. The Respondents cannot take the advantage of their own delay in disposing the stay application. The effect of adjustment of refund for assessment year 2022-2023 while processing the return on 6 October 2022 would be that the Petitioner has made a payment of Rs. 13,63,340/- against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 and the said amount of Rs. 13,63,340/- is in excess of 20% of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... absence of any justifiable reason for not disposing the appeal filed before the CIT (A) for a period of more than six years same would run contrary to the objective for which Section 250 (6A) has been introduced. We hope that the Commissioner (Appeal) would dispose of this appeal as expeditiously as possible. 17. In view of above, we pass the following order :- ORDER PER (i) Respondent to refund sum of Rs. 6,05,030/- being excess adjustment made against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order. (ii) Petitioner to make an application to the first appellate authority for taking up his appeal for hearing and if such an application is made, the Commissioner (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates