Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 631 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - by-products also have some value and therefore, TDS ought to have been deducted in respect thereof as per AO - Held that:- As mentioned earlier, the petitioner is operating in the whole of the State of Punjab engaged essentially in public utility services of a very important nature, namely, the procurement and distribution of foodgrains throughout the State of Punjab. They are funded by the Reserve Bank of India/Union of India. Although the turnover is around ₹ 12,000 crores, their profits is only about ₹ 1 crore. If the amounts lying in their bank accounts are frozen, at this stage, it would cause enormous inconvenience, harm and prejudice, not only to the petitioner but to the public in general. This important fact persuades us to grant stay in favour of the petitioner. We do not grant the stay, at this stage, merely because the petitioner has a arguable case. That is but one factor. The impugned order merely stated that the factors mentioned in the circular of the CBDT dated 02.12.1993 are absent. The CBDT circular only contains illustrative situations, as noted in the impugned order dated 09.07.2014 itself. It is certainly not exhaustive of the grounds on which a stay can be granted and the grounds which ought to be taken into consideration in an application for grant of stay. The impugned order dated 25.09.2014 merely records that the petitioner has not given a schedule of payment. The last order impugned in these petitions, namely, the order dated 12.03.2015 merely observes that despite various opportunities, the petitioner had failed to submit any proposal/schedule to pay the demand and that the petitioner has not furnished any reasonable cause for not paying the demand. An assessee not paying the demand or not agreeing to do so in instalment, would not be a ground for rejecting the grant of stay, if the assessee is entitled to the same. Thus the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the demand, pending the hearing and of the final disposal of the appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|