| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 30, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Strictures against dept for disposing stay applications without proper reasons
Pursuant to orders u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), the assessee was liable to make payment of Rs. 59.06 crores for three years. The AO rejected the stay application and directed that 50% of the demand be paid. A part of the demand was paid by the assessee. The assessee filed a stay application before the CIT. Of the three years, the CIT granted stay for two years and directed the AO to realize the demand for AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 7.69 crores. No reasons were given for the decision. Despite the stay granted by the CIT, the AO issued garnishee notices u/s 226 (3) for the entire amount of Rs. 59.06 crores. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge the same. HELD allowing the Petition:
(i) The action of the AO in issuing garnishee notices for the entire demand despite the partial stay by the CIT shows defiance and non-application of mind;
(ii) There is no reasoning in the CIT’s order for refusing to stay the demand for AY 2010-11 despite KEC International v. B.R. Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158 where parameters have been laid down to govern the manner in which applications for stay should be dealt with. Either the CIT is ignorant of the law laid down by the Court or has acted in breach of the principles enunciated in the judgment. In either view of the matter, the entire approach of the CIT (TDS) is thoroughly misconceived. In KEC International it was noted that in a large number of matters orders are passed perfunctorily by the department only with an idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. The law laid down by the Division Bench has not led the authorities to act in compliance. This is an unfortunate state of affairs;
(iii) Accordingly, the garnishee notices were stayed and the CIT was directed to pass a fresh order in line with KEC International.
See Also:
Vodafone Essar South vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) (
Terror Tactics of Dept strongly condemmed),
Mahindra & Mahindra (
judicial conscience shocked by shocking and sad state of affairs of the Dept) and
Legrand (
Dept’s actions calculated to undermine the dignity and majesty and impair the constitutional authority of High Court)
Related Posts:
- Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The consequence of approved scheme of amalgamation was that amalgamating company had ceased to exist and on its ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person against whom assessment proceeding can be initiated. In said case before notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.9.2013,…
- PCIT vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and discarded the Revenue's theory that profit of the assessee's company were passed on to the clients. It was also noticed that the Revenue has not contended that the client code modification facility is often misused by the assessee to pass on losses to…
- PCIT vs. Hybrid Financial Services Ltd (Bombay High Court) It is a settled position in law that after 1.4.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish or prove that the debt has in fact become irrecoverable but it would be sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. This…
- Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. There is no allegation…
- Usha Exports vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The reasons also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.N.K.Proteins Ltd. (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT v. DCIT ). Even this decision was before the Assessing Officer in the proceeding pursuant to first reopening notice. The Petitioner, along with its objections, placed explanatory note as to how the…
- Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) In para 3.4 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that though the Petitioner had furnished details relating to purchase and sale of shares of Mittal Securities Ltd., (now Scan Steels Ltd.,), but that did not amount to full and true disclosure of all material facts unless true and…
Recent Comments