Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 15 - HC - Income TaxRequest for stay of demand till the expiry of the time limit for filing an appeal declined - Held that:- In terms of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in UTI Mutual Fund Versus Income Tax Officer 19(3)(2) & ors. [2012 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the fixed deposits to the tune of Rs. 20.00 crores were not encashed during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). After the appeal was decided, the embargo on the revenue to encash the fixed deposits came to an end and consequently the revenue was within its jurisdiction to encash the guarantee of Rs. 20.00 crores. Thus it is not find that the assessee is entitled to stay of recovery proceedings during the limitation period for the filing of the appeal. There is no deemed stay of liability after the enforceable order is passed by an authority under the statute. Reference may be made to Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd. [1993 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] In an another judgment, the Court held that pending appeal, it is open to the Decree holder to execute decree subject to the right of restitution in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME). The court only at the time of passing a judgment and decree reversing that of the appellate court should take into consideration the subsequent events, but, by no stretch of imagination, can refuse to do so despite arriving at the findings that the plaintiff would not be entitled to grant of a decree. In view of the above, mere fact that the petitioner had time limit to file an appeal does not bar the revenue to execute the order passed. No merit in the present petition.
|