COURT: |
|
CORAM: |
|
SECTION(S): |
|
GENRE: |
|
CATCH WORDS: |
|
COUNSEL: |
|
DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: |
December 25, 2010 (Date of publication) |
AY: |
|
FILE: |
|
CITATION: |
|
|
No coercive recovery if first appeal ready for hearing
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices and took steps for attachment of the assessee’s bank account. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the recovery action which was opposed by the department on the ground that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournment of the hearing of the appeals. HELD allowing the Petition:
(i) The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeals at the earliest possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court’s judgment;
(ii) Till such time orders are passed by the appellate authority, recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance;
(iii) If there is any non-cooperation from the part of the assessee, the appellate authority is at liberty to finalize the appeals without providing any further opportunity of hearing.
Note: In
Mahindra & Mahindra vs. UOI 59 ELT 505 (Bom) it was held that it was “
highly improper” to recover the demand before expiry of the statutory period of appeal & during the pendency of a stay application. {See also
Anab-E-Shahi vs. ADC 98 STC 386 (AP) &
RPG Enterprises 251 ITR 20 (AT)(Mum)}. See
Sultan Leather vs. ACIT 191 ITR 179 (All) (
No recovery during pendency of rectification application). See also
strictures passed in
Paramount Health Services vs. ACIT 37 DTR 377 (Bom) against department’s mindless recovery action &
Chankayagiri & The Art Of Tax Recovery
Related Posts:
- Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
- V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) Expressing again our anguish and pain on the same, we direct that in future, if any such concession is made by any Authorised Representative on behalf of the Assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit from Assessee and the counsel on behalf of the Assessee or atleast a written…
- PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Calcutta High Court) The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of…
Leave a Reply