TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he last 10 years when the petition was pending. Therefore it would be appropriate to restore the issue before the Assessing Officer at the stage of the notice dated 29th January, 2003 to determine the factual amount due from the defaulting company and consequently the petitioner. Thereafter the Assessing Officer will rule on the meaning of the words 'tax due' under Section 179 of the Act - Writ Petition No. 908 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. K. Gopal a/w Jitendra Singh Ms. Neha Paranjpe for the petitioner Mr. Abhay Ahuja for the respondents ORDER P. C. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges: (a) order dated 24th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defaulting company as now due. It is stated across the bar that after the impugned orders dated 24th March, 2003 and 31st July, 2003 were passed, the tax arrears of the defaulting company had been rectified for Assessment Year 199798 by an order dated 18th December, 2004. This order dated 28th December, 2004 has determined the tax and surcharge payable at ₹ 15.55 lakhs and an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs has already been paid by the defaulting company to the Revenue. Thus leaving a balance amount of ₹ 5.55 lakhs as tax and surcharge payable with interest payable thereon (till 28th December, 2004 interest payable was ₹ 25 lakhs approximately). In support a photo copy of Notice of Demand dated 28th December, 2004 along with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that it is being clarificatory in nature. Therefore the petitioner is obliged to pay the interest also in respect of the pending tax dues. 6. So far as the objection of Revenue in respect of the petitioner suffering from laches and delay is concerned, we find that the respondentrevenue had not raised this objection when the petition was admitted on 12th July, 2005 nor was it kept open to be raised/urged at the final hearing. Therefore it is not open to the Revenue to urge it now as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Dinkar Satpute v/s. Zilla Parishad 2004(3) Mah. L. J. 151. In any case we find that the delay in challenging the orders dated 24th March, 2003 and 31st July, 2003 has been explained in the petition and we are sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 179 of the Act. The Assessing Officer would consider whether the Explanation is prospective or retrospective. Besides, also consider the impact of the Explanation in respect of pending tax dues. Needless to state the order on the Notice dated 29th January, 2003 will be passed in accordance with principles of natural justice. 8. In the above view, the impugned orders dated 24th March, 2003 passed under Section 179 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and order dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Act are set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to proceed further from the stage of the show cause notice dated 29th January, 2003 issued to the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
