9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 stay, the Petitioner voluntarily had already deposited 20% of the demand which worked out to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue 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 Respondents, defended the action of the Respondents and submitted that the refund for assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the demand which the Respondents have directed the Petitioner to pay vide order dated 17 April 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 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 (Appeal) would hear and decide the appeal keeping in mind the provisions of Section 250 (6A) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
