| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 18, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 220: After rejecting stay application AO must give reasonable time before taking steps for coercive recovery
Having said that this is a case in which technically no fault could be found with the assessing officer, we feel that there was there was an element of impropriety in his action in issuing the garnishee order under section 226(3) on 17.2.2014, the very day on which he rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner under section 220(3). It is expected of him, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts since the petitioner, faced with an order rejecting the stay application, may need some time to make arrangements to pay the entire tax demand or come up with proposals for paying the same in instalments. That opportunity was not afforded by the assessing officer in the present cases. The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected. Taking away the amount of Rs.43.87 crores from the bank account of the petitioner may perhaps not be legally faulted, but taking into account the haste with which the assessing officer acted in the present case it seems to us that there was an element of arbitrariness in the action of the assessing officer. In our opinion, since the stay applications filed by the petitioners are pending before the Tribunal, the more appropriate course would be to issue the following directions
Related Posts:
- Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is not as if mistake of a legal advisor, however, gross and inexcusable, will entitle an assessee to condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The facts of the case are to be examined to ascertain if there had been negligence or gross want of skill, competence or knowledge…
- PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is true that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to disclose information pertaining to the share applicants, the amounts and their source, the mode in which payment was made and confirmatory letters together with PAN details. But it is also trite…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The declaration of law by this Court is binding on all authorities within the State including the Commission. The petitioner was entitled…
Leave a Reply