| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | Badar Durrez Ahmed J, Siddharth Mridul J |
| SECTION(S): | 220(6) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | high-pitched assessments, Recovery of tax, stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | Abhimanyu Jhamba |
| DATE: | August 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | October 7, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Stay of demand in high-pitched assessments should be considered as per observations in Soul v. DCIT 323 ITR 305 (Delhi) | |
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax with the approval of the CIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi. By virtue of the said order dated 06.08.2014 the stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. We have gone through the impugned order dated 06.08.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken us through the instruction No. 96 of 1969 as well as instruction No. 1914 of 1993. We have also examined the decision of this court in the case of Soul v. DCIT: 323 ITR 305 (Delhi) and, in particular, paragraph 8 thereof where the above mentioned two instructions have been considered as also the earlier decision of this court in Valvoline Cummins v. DCIT: 307 ITR 103 (Delhi). Considering the same, we feel that it would be appropriate if the ACIT reconsiders the application of the petitioner for stay in the light of the observations contained in the said decision [Soul v. DCIT (supra)]. This is so because according to the petitioner the assessment is a high pitched one inasmuch as it is approximately 17 times of the returned income. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2014 and remit the matter to the ACIT, Range-3, New Delhi for a fresh consideration of the stay application filed by the petitioner after taking into account the above mentioned decision of this court.
tax payer is not a criminal per se; and he cannot be just hounded by dept, is the principle pf natural justice; so without an incidence of mens rea there cannot be application of sec 271(1)(c); when a ROI for an AY if more than 6 months under sec 143 the AO loses his jurisdiction on tax payer under limitation prescription, if he does it is bad in law and his notice gets quashed… and like these rules are there why these worthies behave so indicates there may be some obvious reasons toyed by revenue.
public servants need be friendly to tax payers is the tax law!