TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under Chapter 17(d) in support of the action of third respondent Income Tax officer in recovery of the tax assessed. This Court is of the opinion that the respondents have miserably failed to substantiate the illegal act committed by the third respondent in high handedly recovering the assessed amount. Despite the fact that statutorily he is prevented from doing so which is fortified by several judgments of various High Courts and Hon ble Apex Court. Pathetic incompetence of the officer either in understanding the legal provisions which is borne out from the book or in understanding the judgment, which governs the law with reference to the manner of recovery. The conduct of third respondent is nothing but causing harassment to assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in confirming the assessment order under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (Hereinafter, referred to as the Act ). 2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under:- Petitioner herein is a development agency constituted by the State Government for development of Bidar District and the same is headed by the Deputy Commissioner of Bidar as its Chairman. It is stated that the revenue generated to the said organization is assessed to income tax by the third respondent-Income Tax Officer under Section 143 Read with Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner would state that, for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 and 2015-16 two separate orders were passed on 22.02.2016 and 07.03.2016. The said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttached the amount standing in the account of the petitioner with fourth respondent Bank by issuing notice dated 28.03.2018. Consequently an amount of ₹ 24,10,15,782/- is recovered as against 15% and 40% which are required to be recovered as against order of each assessment year in accordance with the rules governing for payment of statutory deposit to maintain the appeal. According to the petitioner the said amount would be in a range of ₹ 7,64,38,411/-. Thereby indicating that the third respondent has high handedly collected an excessive amount of ₹ 16,45,77,371/-. Thereby causing hurdle to day-to-day functioning of the petitioner, inasmuch, as the petitioner rendering the institution to the level of not having funds to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious years without there being a material change in fats or law, that is a relevant consideration in deciding the application for stay; 4. When a bank account has been attached, before withdrawing the amount, reasonable prior notice should be furnished to the assessee to enable the assessee to make a representation or seek recourse to a remedy in law; 5. In exercising the powers of stay, the Income Tax Officer should not act as a mere tax gatherer but a quasi judicial authority vested with the public duty of protecting the interest of the Revenue while at the same time balancing the need to mitigate hardship to the assessee. Though the assessing officer has made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Area Development Authority, W.P. (L) No.3174 of 2013, decision dated 04.02.2014. 4. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) 59 ELT 505. 5. Ocean Driving Centre Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 (3) Mh. L.J. 6. Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) 292 ELT 161. 7. Flipkart India Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, W.P.No.1339-1342/2017 (T-IT), decision dated 23.02.2017. 8. Jagdish Gandabhai Shah v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. Civ. Application No.5679 of 2017, decision dated 29.03.2017. 9. The Shri SaibabaSansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. The Union of India and others, W.P.No.939 of 2018 decided on 27.03.2018. 10. Tata Tele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handedly recovering the assessed amount. Despite the fact that statutorily he is prevented from doing so which is fortified by several judgments of various High Courts and Hon ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter only thing this Court can understand is the pathetic incompetence of the officer either in understanding the legal provisions which is borne out from the book or in understanding the judgment, which governs the law with reference to the manner of recovery. The conduct of third respondent is nothing but causing harassment to assessee. In that view of the matter this Court finds the amount of ₹ 15,82,41,007/- which is recovered by third respondent is in excess of his right in the fact situation, also in the light of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
