TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act - It is directed that the CIT(Appeals) will take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 for expeditious hearing as soon as the Tribunal passes an order on the above - The petition is disposed off. - Writ Petition (L) No. 2158 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate i/b. A. K. Jasani For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Malhotra with Mr. N. A. Kazi ORDER PC: What is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) is the order dated 4 September 2013 of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai, granting conditional stay against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act). It is further submitted that in any view of the matter the department has already recovered from the petitioner a sumof Rs.196.63 Crores by way of adjustment against the refund due to the petitioner for the Assessment Years 200809, 200910 and 201213 and therefore, also the stay as prayed for ought to have been granted. 3) On the other hand Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the department vehemently opposes the petition and submit that the contention of the petitioner that it is an agent of the State Government was not raised before the Assessing Officer. Learned Counsel further relied upon certain decisions in support of his contention that the petitioner assessee being a body corporate having p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived the petitioner is liable to be passed over to the State Government. It is further submitted that upon completion of the work all the properties and funds of the petitioner would vest in the State Government. 5) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the demand has been raised upon the petitioner consequent to the Assessment Order dated 11 March 2013. The issue of the petitioner being an agent of the Government was not raised before the Assessing Officer and thus not examined in the Assessment Order. The decision in the case of CIDCO (supra) of the Tribunal does prima facie appear to apply to this case, however, the same is subject to detailed examination of the activity of the petitioner in the context of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
