Search Results For: 254(2A)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 21, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2A): In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay

We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay

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: 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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Coercive Tax Recovery: The AO wanted to preempt the Tribunal from dealing with the Stay application. The Act and conduct of the Revenue officials is against judicial conscience. Canons of law, justice and ethics have been broken down by the officials of the Department. An effort has been made to render the provisions of the law inoperative, debarring the assessee from availing any remedy from the higher forum

The act ion of the coercive recovery on the par t of the Assessing officer was against the elementary principal of rule of law. That the state is expected to act fairly. The undue haste on the part of the Assessing officer in recovering the amount was not only contrary to the binding decision of the Court but also shocking to the judicial conscience. The entire action was directed at rendering the Tribunal and the assessee helpless so that no relief can be granted in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal could not be silent spectator of the arbitrary and illegal act ion on the part of the Assessing officer so as to frustrate the legal process provided under the Act. The grant of refund of the amount that has been coercively recovered by the department was in the exercise of the tribunal’s inherent powers to ensure that the assessee is not left high and dry only on account of illegal and highhanded actions on the part of revenue and the assessing officer

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously

One cannot lost sight of the fact that there may be number of reasons due to which the learned Tribunal is not in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals within the maximum period of 365 days despite their best efforts. Some of the reasons due to which the learned Tribunal despite its best efforts is not in a position to dispose of the appeal/appeals at the earliest are stated herein above. There cannot be a legislative intent to punish a person/ assessee though there is no fault of the assessee and/or appellant

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 19, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2A): The Third Proviso which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. It is struck down as violative of Article 14. The ITAT has the power to extend stay even beyond 365 days

While it could be argued that the condition that the stay order could be extended beyond a period of 180 days only if the delay in disposing of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee was a reasonable condition on the power of the Tribunal to the grant an order of stay, it can, by no stretch of imagination, be argued that where the assessee is not responsible for the delay in the disposal of the appeal, yet the Tribunal has no power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days. The intention of the legislature, which has been made explicit by insertion of the words – ‘even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee’– renders the right of appeal granted to the assessee by the statute to be illusory for no fault on the part of the assessee. The stay, which was available to him prior to the 365 days having passed, is snatched away simply because the Tribunal has, for whatever reason, not attributable to the assessee, been unable to dispose of the appeal