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:
- 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…
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
- PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd (Bombay High Court) In view of the second proviso to Section 153A(1) of the said Act, once assessment gets abated, it is open for the assessee to lodge a new claim in a proceeding under Section 153A(1) which was not claimed in his regular return of income, because assessment was never made/finalised in…
Leave a Reply