| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
November 29, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
AO’s action of recovering outstanding taxes without affording reasonable time to take remedial steps is a misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts. AO has to refund the taxes recovered
The assessee received the order of the CIT(A) on 16.11.2013. It filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 18.11.2013 which was the next working day. The assessee also filed an application before the Tribunal requesting stay of demand. The said application was fixed for hearing on 22.11.2013. However, the AO, without awaiting the outcome of the stay application, attached the assessee’s bank account u/s 226(3) on 18.11.2013 and withdrew Rs. 159.84 crore. The assessee argued before the Tribunal that the coercive action of the AO was wrong because (i) the AO had taken coercive action before the expiry of time of filing the appeal against the order of the CIT(A), (ii) the action was taken even prior to the disposal of the stay application by the Tribunal and (iii) no prior notice was given to the assessee before taking the recovery action u/s 226(3). HELD by the Tribunal:
The action of the AO in recovering the outstanding without affording the assessee minimum reasonable time to take remedial steps is a misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts as well as the basic rule of law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we direct the Revenue to refund the entire amount of Rs. 159.84 crore to the assessee within 10 days from the receipt of this order (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd UOI 59 ELT 505, Mahindra & Mahindra W.P. 2164/2007, UTI Mutual Fund 345 ITR 71 (Bom), RPG Enterprises 251 ITR 20 (Mum) & MSEB 81 ITD 299 (Mum) followed)
Related Posts:
- Tata Education and Development Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that these issues are of vital importance to all the stakeholders all over the country, and in our considered understanding, on such important pan India issues of far reaching consequence, it is desirable to have the benefit of arguments from stakeholders in different part…
- Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant records, it reveals that they are in the form of current and inter banking accounts and contain both types of entries i.e. giving and taking the amount and appear to be a current account and cannot be considered as loans and…
- K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Two propositions of law emerge from the above observations. Firstly, once the promise is solemnly given by the State with an intention that when acted upon, it would create a legal relation and acting on it the promisee has changed his/her position and incurred liability, the State must be held…
- Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the complaint was filed for delay in remitting the tax deducted. The applicant has taken stand that he was non- executive Director of the company and they are also practising advocates and, therefore, they are prohibited under the…
- National Co-operative Development Corporation vs. CIT (Supreme Court) In the case of a business, the profits must be arrived at on ordinary commercial principles. The scheme of the IT Act requires the determination of ‘real income’ on the basis of ordinary commercial principles of accountancy. To determine the ‘real income’, permissible expenses are required to be set off.…
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
The action of AO is against spirit of law of natural justice. Revenue authorities should issue appropriate instructions to the subordinate offices
It is just not enough for the Tribunal to express unhappiness at the assessing authority’s misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts as well as the basic rule of law and principles of natural justice. It ought to have recommending to the Finance Department to initiate stern action against him.
Parantap Chandurkar
I fully agree with the view expressed by Mr.Parantap Chandurkar and over above that Court should take stern action against concerned officer and he should be penalized