9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the writ petitions. 3. Brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing these appeals. 3.1. The petitioner filed its return for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2016-17 and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The return of the Income Tax was scrutinized through CASS and assessments under section 143(3) of the Act was completed. A search was conducted on 01.12.2015 in the premises of the petitioner and also its offices and a search was conducted under section 133 (A) of the Act in the group concerns by the department. Notices were issued under section 153(C) of the Act on 28.02.2017 and the petitioner responded for the same on 28.02.2017. Assessments were completed under section 143(3) read with 153(C) read with 153(A) of the Act on 29.12.2017. 3.2. The petitioner filed the stay petition before the assessing officer not to collect the tax, since they were in the process of filing the appeal against the assessment orders. The assessing officer by an order dated 30.01.2018, after referring to the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and on complying with such condition, the petitioner company was also granted leave to file a fresh stay petition before the CITA and the CITA was directed to dispose all the stay petitions on merits and in accordance with law. 3.8. The common order that was passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner company, is now the subject matter of challenge by both the petitioner company as well as the department. 4. Submissions made by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant in W.A.Nos.1198 to 1203 of 2018 and 1st Respondent in W.A.Nos.1551 to 1556 of 2018 (i) The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the assessments are extremely high pitched assessments and the tabular column that has been prepared for the purpose would go on to show that for certain assessment years., it has touched 548 times, 444 times 79 times and 74 times more than the total income assessed. (ii) The respondents failed to appreciate Instruction Number 96, dated 21.08.1969 read with sub clause 2(B)(III) of the Instruction Number 1914, dated 2.12.1993 issued by the CBDT, which specifically provided that where the assessment order is unreasonably high pitched, the collection of the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing final orders in the writ petition, had taken into consideration the orders passed by the CITA in the stay petitions and only thereafter the petitioner was directed to pay 5% of the tax demanded for each of the assessment years. This itself according to the learned standing counsel was a concession which the learned Single Judge ought not to have given to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that at this stage, the court cannot go into the merits of the case or appreciate whether the assessments are high pitched. If the petitioner company wants the benefit of the order of stay, it is duty bound to deposit the percentage of tax demand fixed by the authorities and there can never be a blanket stay granted in a case of these nature. (iii) The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 256 (Mad.), (Prachi Silks Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 1) in order to substantiate his contention that without the petitioner pleading undue hardship by providing relevant facts and materials it cannot expect the authorities to grant a blanket stay on the payment of tax due from the petitioner. (iv) The learned Standing Counsel furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has employed several persons and Doctors and several citizens require the care and attention of these hospitals. After taking into consideration all these factors, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to give one last opportunity to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to pay 5% of the tax demanded and thereafter to move a fresh stay petition before the CITA. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. 6. Conclusion: (i) This Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, consider it necessary to fix a lumpsum amount to be paid by the petitioner in installments and thereafter permit the petitioner to prosecute the appeal pending before the CITA. This court is of the view that if the petitioner is permitted to file another fresh stay application before the CITA, it will unnecessarily result in another round of litigation, which will have impact in disposal of the appeal. Therefore this court deems it fit to fix an amount of Rs. 35,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Crores only) to be paid by the petitioner company in 12 equal m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
