| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
July 1, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Where the returned income was Rs. 7.25 crores but the assessed income was Rs. 58.68 crores and the assessee had filed a stay application before the Addl. CIT but the same was disposed of by the DCIT, a junior functionary, held:
(i) In accordance with Instruction No.96 dated 21st August, 1969 issued by the CBDT where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute had to be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken;
(ii) The Assessee would, in normal course, be entitled to an absolute stay of the demand on the basis of the above Instruction though it voluntarily agreed to pay 15% of the demand;
(iii) As the Addl. CIT was the AO, he had the power and duty to deal with a stay petition u/s 220 (6). He could not abdicate or relinquish the statutory power nor could he suo motu divest himself of this power and confer it upon a junior functionary such as the DCIT;
(iv) The fact that the assessee had acquiesced in the power of the DCIT could not confer jurisdiction upon the DCIT;
(v) In view of the unreasonable stance of the department, it was directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000.
See Also: Legrand vs. UOI (Bom) and Mahindra & Mahindra vs. AO (Bom).
Related Posts:
- New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
- Cavalier Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) In the instant case, what we notice is that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible…
- Aditya Marine Limited vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with section 246A of the Act which provides for appeal, it would be noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from…
- JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…
- 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…
- Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) The Government of India has introduced E-Governance for conduct of assessment proceedings electronically. It is a laudable steps taken by the Income Tax Department to pave way for an objective assessment without human interaction. At the same time, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able…
[…] Also: Valvoline Cummins (Del HC). Posted in All Judgements, High Court […]