| COURT: | ITAT Bangalore |
| CORAM: | B. R. Baskaran (AM), N. V. Vasudevan (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 220(6), 245 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | coercive recovery, Recovery of tax, stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | Bharath Janarthanan, Neeraj Jain, Ramit Katyal |
| 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
Recent Comments