Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Paramount Health Services vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Paramount Health Services vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (paramount_recovery_strictures.pdf)

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:

  • Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) If we allow such oral routine explanation to be tendered and accepted, we do not think that the state of affairs will ever improve. The superiors in the hierarchy have never bothered as to whether the discipline demanded from these officers is indeed in place. Though there is lack of…
  • 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…
  • Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 296 ITR 90 Bom has provided that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections of the assessee, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of…
  • 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…
  • Vora Financial Services P. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) should be applicable only in cases where the receipt of shares become property in the hands of recipient and the shares shall become property of the recipient only if it is “shares of any other company”. In the instant case, the assessee herein has purchased…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court) 

    High Court deprectaes the practice of the department in mechnaically filing frivolous appeals. Observes that it causes inconvenience and wastes the time of the Court and results in sidelining of important issues. It accordingly imposes costs of Rs. 10,000 on … CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court)…
  2. CIT vs. Kohli Brothers Color Lab (Allahabad High Court) 

    The effect of the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) is that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had become bad in the previous year and mere writing of the debt as irrecoverable is sufficient. However, the said entry of write off of…
  3. CIT vs. Panchratan Hotels (HP High Court) 

    S. 170 provides that where there is a “succession of business”, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of the income upto the date of succession and the successor has to be assessed thereafter. 100% of the assessee’s shares were sold by the existing shareholders to another person….
  4. CIT vs. Mudra Nanavati (Bombay High Court) 

    S. 158BC provides that in determining the undisclosed income, the provisions of s. 143 (2) shall apply “so far as may be”. S. 143 (2) provides that a notice shall not be issued after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which…
  5. Genom Biotech vs. DIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief on the basis of information that one of the three conditions of s. 132 exist. However, it is not the mandate of s. 132 that the reasonable belief recorded by the designated authority…