9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared total income of Rs. 46,41,070 while the assessment order in respect of the said year assessed the income at Rs.1,67,02,35,990 which is almost 350 times the returned income. The same is stated to be on account of two additions made. The first addition of Rs. 1,46,55,94,922 is on account of alleged unaccounted sales while a sum of Rs. 20,00,00,000 is on account of cash credits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this alleged unaccounted sales have also been added as income in the hands of sister concerns and in so far as cash credits are concerned the details of the PAN numbers of the assessees who have carried out the transaction have been furnished to the Department. 7. The sum and substance of the submission of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof was also not stayed in spite of the specific provision in the matter in section 220(6). 2. The then Deputy Prime Minister had observed as under: " . . . where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher than the returned income, say, twice the latter amount or more, the collection of the tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeals, provided there were no lapse on the part of the assessee." 3. The Board desire that the above observations may be brought to the notice of all the Income-tax Officers working under you and the powers of stay of recovery in such cases up to the stage of first appeal may be exercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner/ Commissioner of Income-tax.' A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05. 10. The judgment in Soul (supra) has considered the impact of Circular No. 1914 of 1993 vis a vis a judgment in Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 307 ITR 103 and thus a similar submission as is sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent before us was advanced before that court. 11. The Division Bench dealt with it in the following manner (page 308 of 323 ITR): "The issue that has been raised for the present, by the petitioner is with regard to the de-sealing of the bank accounts on account of the fact that returned income was approximately Rs. 10.16 lakhs whereas the assessed income is very high pitched in the sense that it is approximately 74 times of the returned income. The learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of all the Income-tax Officers and that the powers of stay on recovery in such cases be exercised, up to the stage of first appeal, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner of Income-tax. Noting the above instruction, this court observed as under (page 130): '41. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the aforesaid extract would show that where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision of the appeal is taken. In this case, as we have noted above, the assessment is almost eight times the returned income. Clearly, the above extract from Instruction No. 96 dated August 21, 1969 would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up is not to be regarded as adequate effort to recover taxes. B. Stay petitions (i) Stay petitions filed with the Assessing Officers must be disposed of within two weeks of the filing of petition by the taxpayer. The assessee must be intimated of the decision without delay. (ii) Where stay petitions are made to the authorities higher than the Assessing Officer (DC/CIT/CC), it is the responsibility of the higher authorities to dispose of the petitions without any delay, and in any event within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. Such a decision should be communicated to the assessee and the Assessing Officer immediately. (iii) The decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by the Assessing Officer/TRO and hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this court in Valvoline Cummins Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 103 is not altered at all. This is so because paragraph No. 2(A) which speaks of responsibility specifically indicates that it shall be the responsibility of the Assessing Officer and the TRO to collect every demand that has been raised 'except the following', which includes '(d) demand stayed in accordance with paras B and C below'. Para B relates to stay petitions. As extracted above, Sub-clause (iii) of para B clearly indicates that a higher/superior authority could interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer/TRO only in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances have been indicated as 'where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high pitche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
