TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the ICICI Bank that on 05/10/2017, this Court has passed an interim order and it has been observed that there will be no coercive action against the petitioner Company and a legal notice was given by the lawyer of the petitioner Company to the ICICI Bank under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The ICICI Bank in order to avoid any contempt has permitted transaction in the account which was freezed. It is really strange that in case there was some confusion in respect of interim order passed by this Court, nothing prevented the ICICI Bank to approach this Court. Merely because the learned counsel for the Company has given a legal notice to initiate contempt proceedings, the ICICI Bank has permitted withdrawal of the amount and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Income Tax Department shall certainly be free to take appropriate steps against the ICICI Bank strictly in accordance with law. This Court in light of the aforesaid as 20% of the demand has not been deposited by the petitioner Company, is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the matter and accordingly, the admission is declined. - Writ Petition No.16010/2017, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank is bad in law in light of the CBDT circulars dated 31/07/2017 and 25/09/2017. 06- The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a. To quash the garnish notice dated 04/10/2017 issued by the respondent to ICICI Bank for remittance of ₹ 9,74,40,000/- being the 20% amount of demand, whereas the petitioner has already deposited the amount more than the required for availing stay. b. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the deposit of ₹ 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees twelve crores) being more than 20% of the outstanding demand as per demand notice as compliance of CBDT Circular dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017 and the saty order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the respondent. c. To direct the Respondent not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner for realization of the demand as per demand notice dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P/3). d. Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 07- It is pertinent to note that an interim ex-parte order was passed on 05/10/2017 and the matter was listed on a mention slip before this Court. It is an ex-parte order. This Court has stayed the impugned no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for amalgamation of the demands raised against two separate legal entities. The petitioner assessee has thus, deliberately misled this Court that more than 20% of the demand has been paid in case of SEZ Indore Ltd. too, whereas not a single penny has been paid towards the same. 13- He has further stated that the above payment of ₹ 12 Crores has been paid by MPAKVN on 11/12/2014 as Self Assessment Tax against the incomes declared by the petitioner assessee in its return of income dated 30/11/2014 which clearly show that an amount of ₹ 12,70,64,130/- is payable as per its returned income. The assessment in this case has been completed on 28/04/2017 and the demand of ₹ 48,71,99,640/- was raised. Against the aforesaid demand of ₹ 48,71,99,640/-, the petitioner assessee has not paid even a single penny. It has been further contended that the petitioner assessee has grossly misrepresented the facts by claiming before this Court that an amount of ₹ 12 Crores has already been paid against the assessments made in the petitioner assessees cases, whereas, the fact is that the aforesaid amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No.1914: (A) In a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) hereunder. (B) In a situation where, (a) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier year or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.) or, (b) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en number dated 29.2.2016 Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.3.1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand. Vide O.M. No.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.2.2016 revised guidelines were issued in partial modification of Instruction No.1914, wherein inter alia, vide para 4(A) it had been laid down that in a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT(A), the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) thereunder. Similar references to the standard rate of 15% have also been made in succeeding paragraphs therein. 2. The matter has been reviewed by the Board in the light of feedback received from field authorities. In view of the Board's efforts to contain over pitched assessments through several measures resulting in fairer and more reasonable assessment orders, the standard rate of 15% of the disputed demand is found to be on lower side. Accordingly, it has been decided that the standard rate prescribed in O.M. Dated 29.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /12/2014. The records further reveal that in the demand notice under Section 156 issued along with the assessment order dated 28/04/2017, credit for the Self Assessment Tax paid on 11/12/2014 was left to be given. The credit for the above Self Assessment Tax was given vide order dated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09/10/2017 and the revised demand payable by the assessee has been worked out at ₹ 33,39,03,850/-. 22- The assessee in light of the circulars issued by CBDT was under an obligation to pay only 20% of the outstanding dues and as the same was not done, the department has started proceeding under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the considered opinion of this Court, the department has rightly raised a demand by passing a speaking order. The issue regarding levy of tax of lease premium is not a subject matter of the present writ petition. 23- The issue has to be decided by the authorities where an appeal is pending i.e. CIT(Appeal) and as the assessee has failed to pay 20% of the outstanding dues, this Court is of the opinion that the Department was justified in issuing a demand notice and was also justified in issuing letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
