Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 556 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) for the alleged violation of Section 194A, 194H and Section 194J - Held that:- It shall be the duty of the assessing authority to collect every demand which has not fallen due or has been stayed by a Court or Tribunal etc. It appears in the case Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(3), Coimbatore v. M/s Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore (2015 (7) TMI 557 - ITAT CHENNAI) while dealing with a similar issue, placing reliance on the judgment Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jatari Momin Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] brings the case of the petitioner under the guidelines-C(i)(a) for staying demand, which says that if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an appellate authority or Court earlier, the demand will be stayed. While the issue appears to be clear, this Court does not find any justification why the assessing authority has not considered the guidelines under the Instruction No.1914 dated 2.12.93. Moreover, it is well settled legal position that all authorities, civil, criminal and judicial, coming within the territory of the High Court, shall act in the aid of the High Court. While so, the assessing authority is bound by the order passed by the jurisdictional Tribunal without taking any stand that the Tribunal or High Courts of other States are taking a different view. Be that as it may, when the appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority along with stay petition, keeping in mind that any further observation would have a cascading effect on the pending appeal of the petitioner, with all hesitation, is restraining to express anything on the merits, therefore, in the fitness of things, this Court, accepting the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to dispose of the main appeal itself, as the petitioner had received the notice dated 4.2.2015, hereby directs the second respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. Needless to mention that till then, the first respondent shall not proceed with the recovery, as it is well settled law that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the department is not entitled to initiate the recovery proceedings. Decided in favour of assessee.
|