Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 880 - HC - Income TaxTribunal exercise of it’s power u/s 254(2A) - whether tribunal could not have directed the petitioner to make additional payments to furnish bank guarantees or to maintain balance in the bank account - Held that:- The Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded a finding that the Tribunal, while passing orders under Section 254 (2A) has followed this Court’s order [2017 (11) TMI 1609 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein, petitioner was directed to retain 20% of the tax demand in the bank. Keeping in view the said order, the Hon’ble Single Judge has issued the directions extracted supra. Hon’ble Single Judge has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of the tax demand for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. For the assessment year 2011-12, the Hon’ble Single Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of tax demand, which would in all account for 50% of tax demand for the assessment year and to furnish a bank guarantee for 25% of the tax demand, in parity with orders made for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. So far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Hon’ble Single Judge has modified Tribunal’s order by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 45% of the tax demand An order under Section 254 (2A) is a discretionary order. Therefore, in our considered view, both Tribunal’s order as well as Hon’ble Single Judge’s order cannot be classified as those which any reasonable person cannot pass. Therefore, we see no error in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Single Judge in modifying Tribunal’s order. Therefore, we refrain to interfere with the order impugned.
|