Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: stay of demand

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: The AO cannot impose the per se condition that pending consideration of the application for stay of demand, certain minimum amount (15%/ 20%) has to be deposited by the assessee as prescribed by the CBDT. He has apply his mind and decide the application for stay of demand

It is evident that the concerned authorities and tax officials have to apply their mind to decide an application for stay of demand. This does not, however, mean that any particular AO in a given case has to impose a per se condition that pending consideration of the application for stay of demand, certain minimum amount has to be deposited

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: If the assessee has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal and also filed a stay petition, procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6)/ 246: The AO is not justified in insisting on payment of 20% of the demand based on CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). This approach may defeat & frustrate the right of the assessee to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal. Such can never be the mandate of law

All that we are worried about is the understanding of this Deputy Commissioner of a demand, which is pending or an amount, which is due and payable as tax. If that demand is under dispute and is subject to the appellate proceedings, then, the right of appeal vested in the petitioner/assessee by virtue of the Statute should not be rendered illusory and nugatory. That right can very well be defeated by such communication from the Revenue/Department as is impugned before us. That would mean that if the amount as directed by the impugned communication being not brought in, the petitioner may not have an opportunity to even argue his Appeal on merits or that Appeal will become infructuous, if the demand is enforced and executed during its pendency. In that event, the right to seek protection against collection and recovery pending Appeal by making an application for stay would also be defeated and frustrated. Such can never be the mandate of law

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2016-17, 2017-18
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271C & 206AA Penalty: The assessee has made out a prima facie case that the outcome of the appeal before the ITAT will directly impact the penalty proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. The Revenue authorities are accordingly restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal (Wander 44 Taxman.com 103 (Bom) & GE India Technology 46 Taxmann.com 374 (Guj) followed)

So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. In our opinion, so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Revenue authorities should be restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271C and 206AA of the Act however the proceedings may continue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6): CBDT's OMs dated 29.02.2016 & 31.07.2017 by which AO's have been directed to grant stay of disputed demand on payment of 20%/ 15% does not fetter the power of the AO & CIT to grant stay on payment of amounts lesser than 15%/ 20%. The AO/ CIT have to deal with the prima facie merits and give reasons for rejection of the stay application

Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to clarify that in all cases like the present, it will be open to the authorities, on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20%, pending appeal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254: While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself

The approach of the Appellate Tribunal is completely erroneous. What was heard before the Appellate Tribunal was the application for stay. There was no occasion for the Appellate Tribunal to go into the merits and decide the appeal itself by holding that it was devoid of any merits

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against the Dept for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. The Dept is showing open defiance of, disrespect of, or of open resentment to, orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Justice dispensation system of the country. Costs imposed on dept

The crux of our above discussion is that the department officials fully knowing that no useful purpose will be served either by moving the present application and even knowing that the present application was infructuous and non-maintainable even on the date of its filing, not only filed this application, but also insisted for arguments despite that the hearing on the main appeal had already been concluded on a previous date. The only motive behind this application is to confront and show resentment and displeasure to this Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery in this matter. The wording of the opening part of the application for vacation of stay clearly reveals that the Department is showing her resentment not only about the passing of ex-parte interim stay order but also towards the directions of the Tribunal for directing her to refund the amount illegally recovered

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tax Recovery: CBDT should investigate arm twisting measures, dehors application of the law, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of tax and take corrective measures to ensure AOs are not overzealous in recovering maximum revenue before 31st March. Once the CIT(A) concludes hearing the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous. The exercise by CIT(A) of taking up the stay application, after the appeal was heard, was only done so as to collect some revenue before 31st March, 2018. This is certainly not expected of an Appellate Authority who adjudicates disputes between the Revenue and the Assessee on a regular basis. The CIT(A) must not only be fair but appear to be so, in a country governed by Rule of law.

It would be best if the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) carry out the necessary investigation on the above allegations and if there is truth in it, it would take corrective action on the same. This is particularly because this conduct alleged on the part of the CIT(A) and the office of the CIT[E] appears to us to be an aberration, as normally we have noted that the officers Revenue do administer the Act with fairness and with loyalty to the Act. Therefore if the allegation in the petition are correct, then such failures on the part of its Officers needs to be corrected by the CBDT before it becomes the norm. Failing corrective measures by the CBDT, would only result in our entertaining petitions from orders under the Act as the alternative remedy would cease to be an efficacious remedy, if such arm twisting measures dehors application of the law, are adopted by the Revenue. We therefore direct the CBDT to carry out necessary investigation on the allegations made in the petition and if found correct, to take corrective measures to ensure that its Officers shall not be overzealous in seeking to recover maximum revenue before 31st March of any financial year, in total disregard of the law

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Stay of demand: Pr CIT & ACIT directed to pay personal costs for filing frivolous writ petition to challenge ITAT stay order. Raising unsustainable, illegal and high pitched demands and enforcing coercive recovery and challenging stay orders shows utterly irresponsible and unfair behaviour. Thereafter, seeking adjournments by the Dept of the hearing in the ITAT adds insult to the injury. Irresponsible and uncoordinated manner of the Dept strongly deprecated

It is the unnecessary dogged approach of the Revenue to multiply the litigations in the Constitutional Courts, in turn wasting the precious public hours of time and unholy desire to become a litigant in the Constitutional Courts at Government costs, though there may be absolutely no justification for doing so. The efforts of the Revenue to prove their point that they had a good case on merits before the Constitutional Courts rather than respecting the orders passed by the statutorily created Tribunals not only shows lack of judicial discipline and hierarchical discipline which they should maintain, but treating the constitutional remedies as a vested right with them. The public functionaries and public officials cannot be allowed to spend Government money and public time much less public time of the Constitutional Courts just for the sake of proving their such fictional desires. First raising unsustainable, illegal and high pitched demands and then seeking to coercively recover the same even showing scant regard to the orders passed by highest Tribunal under the Act and for that invoking the writ jurisdiction to seek support to their such effort is nothing but an utterly irresponsible and unfair behaviour. It is the lack of such discipline with the Government Officials which turns Government Departments as a major litigant in the Constitutional Courts, in turn depriving the Constitutional Courts to devote their time for looking into the causes of poor people, which deserve their time and attention of the court more than such Government Departments

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6): CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 on stay of demand by the AO does not require the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand. As per the Instruction, if the AO requires the assessee to pay less, or more, than 15% of the demand, the sanction of the Pr. CIT is required. If the AO demands 15% to be paid, the assessee is entitled to approach the Pr CIT for review of the AO's decision

The interpretation by the Assessing Officer that at the time of submitting stay application and/or before stay application is taken up for consideration on merits, the assessee is required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as pre-deposit is absolutely based on misinterpretation and/or misreading of the modified Instructions dated 29th February 2016. What Clause-4 provides is that the Assessing Officer may/shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category mentioned in para 4 [B] of the modified instructions dated 29th February 2016. Under the circumstances, the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the stay application and consequently directing the petitioner to deposit 100% of the disputed demand on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-deposit before his application for stay is considered on merits cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside

Read more ›