Search Results For: 220(6)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: October 14, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Recovery of Tax u/s 220(6)/ 245: (i) The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand; (ii) It will be specious & illogical for the Revenue to contend that if an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund can be adjusted u/s 245, on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year (iii) The decisions of CIT(A) & Tribunal in favour of the assessee should not be ignored, (iv) Income-tax officials are officers of the State and the Law requires that they perform their duties with utmost objectivity and fairness, while keeping in mind the sanctity of the role and function assigned to them which at times requires tough steps (Maruti Suzuki Ltd 347 ITR 47 (Del) followed)

It is wrong to say that an adjustment of refund u/s 245 is not a “recovery” only on the ground that s. 245 is placed in the Chapter of “Refunds”. The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand. In Circular No. 1914 dated 2.12.1993, even the CBDT did not regard ‘recovery’ as excluding ‘adjustment’ u/s 245. However, different parameters may apply in considering a request for stay against coercive measures to recover the demand and a stay against refund adjustment. It is permissible for the authority to direct stay of recovery by coercive methods but not grant stay of adjustment of refund

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 28, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Stay of demand u/s 220(6)/254(2A): The Dept is not right in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfing of Road Agency vs. CBI (AIR 2018 SC 2039) to contend that any stay against recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the SC, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the AO to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances

We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. There is no allegation that the petitioner is responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner. Merely relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd (supra), Revenue Authorities now held a belief that any stay against the recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6) Stay of demand: The decision of the authorities to demand payment of 20% of the disputed demand is in consonance with the department's circulars. There are no extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one imposed by the authorities. The contention that the assessee that he received no consideration and no tax could have been demanded from him is subject matter of the Appeal proceedings and cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal

The decision of the authorities is in consonance with the department’s circulars. We do not find any extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one which has been imposed by the said authorities. The contention of the Petitioner that he had received no consideration at the time of transfer of the tenancy of immovable commercial property of which he is the owner and that therefore no tax could have been demanded from him, would be subject matter of the Appeal proceedings. This is not a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 26, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2016-17
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6)/ 281B Tax Recovery: Dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue. They should apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as binding decisions. The petitioner is being singled out for unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment

We have to express our dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue in this matter. We pride ourselves as a State which believes in rule of law. Therefore, the least that is expected of the Officers of the State is to apply the law equally to all and not be over zealous in seeking to collect the revenue ignoring the statutory provisions as well as the binding decisions of this Court. The action of respondent nos.1 and 2 as adverted to in para 14 herein above clearly indicates that a separate set of rules was being applied by them in the case of the petitioner. Equal protection of law which means equal application of law has been scarified in this case by the Revenue. It appears that the S.R.JOSHI 21 of 22 WP-543-2018 petitioner is being singled out for this unfair treatment. The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law. In the above view, we direct the Respondent-Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment, it had to undergo at the hands of the Revenue

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 13, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2018-19
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6) Stay of Demand: The ‘trinity’ of prima facie case, financial stringency & balance of convenience are basic tenets which are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition. The CBDT's Circulars & Instructions are in the nature of guidelines & cannot substitute or override the basic tenets. The AO is required to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way. Even if the assessee has not specifically invoked the three parameters for grant of stay, it is incumbent upon the AO to do so & pass a speaking order

The Circulars and Instructions as extracted above are in the nature of guidelines issued to assist the assessing authorities in the matter of grant of stay and cannot substitute or override the basic tenets to be followed in the consideration and disposal of stay petitions. The existence of a prima facie case for which some illustrations have been provided in the Circulars themselves, the financial stringency faced by an assessee and the balance of convenience in the matter constitute the ‘trinity’, so to say, and are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition by the authority

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

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

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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Arrest for recovery of arrears: It is a question of confinement of a person in jail due to non-payment of tax dues. Since the recovery of outstanding dues has been stayed except deposit of specified amount, the TRO is ordered to arrange for release of the assessee immediately on deposit of said amount. Income Tax Authorities are directed to promptly do the necessary formalities including issue of release warrant to the Jail officials on compliance of the directions of the Tribunal

The sole motive of the Department for aforesaid action of putting the assessee in jail is to recover outstanding tax dues which are otherwise impugned before us, however, the Department has failed to recover any amount from the assessee despite putting the assessee behind the bars for 12 days as on today. Whereas by our above directions not only the Department will get recovery of Rs. 20 lacs out of the outstanding dues against the assessee but also the interest of justice will be served so far as the grievance of the assessee is concerned

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