9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by respondent no.1 rejecting the petitioner's stay application is set aside; (ii) The Assessing Officer shall in accordance with the decision of this Court in Firoz Tin Factory (2012 (4) TMI 191 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) provide the reasons which lead the Revenue to restrict the notice period under Section 156 of the Act to only 7 days instead of the normal 30 days period; (iii) The Assessing Officer will pass a fresh order on the petitioner's stay application after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law and particularly in accordance with the decisions of this Court in KEC International Ltd. (2001 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court) and UTI Mutual Funds (2012 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT); (iv) Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its appeal which is proposed to file before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. This as the Act provides 30 days time to file an appeal and the stay application became necessary as the normal period of 30 days to pay the amounts had been curtailed to 7 days in the Notice under Section 156 of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are that on 16th March, 2018 the Assessing Officer passed an order imposing a penalty of ₹ 1.88 crores under Section 270(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. The impugned order dated 16th March, 2018 was served upon the petitioner on the same day along with a notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act. However, the normal period of 30 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n board at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner had duly served the respondent revenue that the petition is to be taken up for hearing at 3.00 p.m. However, before the petition could be heard at 3.00 p.m., the Assessing Officer withdrew the amount of ₹ 9.88 lakhs from the petitioner's bank account at HDFC Bank Ltd. 7. It must be clarified that Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the petition was not received by the Assessing Officer before he withdrew the amounts from the attached bank account. However, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petition was attempted to be served upon the Assessing Officer, who did not accept the same and directed the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Revenue is no doubt entitled in an appropriate case to reduce the period of notice under Section 156 of the Act in terms of proviso to Section 220(1) of the Act, yet, the reasons for such reduction of period should be communicated to the petitioner as directed by this Court in Firoz Tin Factory Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,(Bom), 359 ITR 296. 11. In the above view, at the request and instance of the parties, the following consent order is passed :Uday (i) The impugned order dated 26th March, 2018 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the petitioner's stay application is set aside; (ii) The Assessing Officer shall in accordance with the decision of this Court in Firoz Tin Factory (supra) provide the reasons which le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
