Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1160 - HC - Income TaxStay against the recovery of demand - order of attachment - petitioner preferred stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the month of January-February, 2015. Meanwhile, the respondents issued a notice under section 226(3) for recovery of the amount - Held that:- We see no reason to criticise the respondents for issuance of this notice. On the contrary, if the Department has not issued notice we would have criticised such action because enough time has lapsed after the order of reassessment was passed and, therefore, this notice is rightly issued by the respondents for recovery in the light of the fact that there was no stay application filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The respondents has to recover the reassessed Income-tax. Thus, no sub stance in the hue and cry made by the petitioners against the conduct of the respondents and we find no undue haste made by the respondents for recovery of the Income-tax reassessed. On the contrary, it is apparent that the Department has waited for a considerable period. In view of the total turnover of the petitioner, which runs into more than ₹ 56,00,00,000 (rupees 56 crores) per annum (as it appears from the entries of the financial year 2013- 14), perhaps, lesser number of instalments could have been allowed. As this is not the matter in dispute, we are not going into the leniency shown by the respondents but suffice it to say that no undue haste has been dis played by the respondents with respect to recovery of the amount of the Income-tax reassessed. Unfortunately, order of 16 instalments, which is without a doubt very lenient in the facts of the present matter, has also not been complied with as it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that there is default in payment of the very first instalment and, therefore, a letter has been writ ten by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle III, Jamshedpur, that if this instalments are not paid, they will initiate all permissible legal actions under the provisions of the Income-tax Act of 1961 and the Rules made thereunder, which are absolutely in accordance with law and can never be termed as excessive. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner will make payment of ₹ 4,00,000 as monthly instalments granted by the Assessing Officer. It would not be out of context to mention here that if the order was complied with earlier, i.e., if the petitioner had scrupulously complied with the order of instalments granted by the respondents, there would not have been any occasion for the respondents to take actions, which were necessary for recovery of the reassessed amount of the Income-tax. Petition dismissed.
|