TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In view of the total turnover of the petitioner, which runs into more than ₹ 56,00,00,000 (rupees 56 crores) per annum (as it appears from the entries of the financial year 2013- 14), perhaps, lesser number of instalments could have been allowed. As this is not the matter in dispute, we are not going into the leniency shown by the respondents but suffice it to say that no undue haste has been dis played by the respondents with respect to recovery of the amount of the Income-tax reassessed. Unfortunately, order of 16 instalments, which is without a doubt very lenient in the facts of the present matter, has also not been complied with as it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that there is default in payment of the very first instalment and, therefore, a letter has been writ ten by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle III, Jamshedpur, that if this instalments are not paid, they will initiate all permissible legal actions under the provisions of the Income-tax Act of 1961 and the Rules made thereunder, which are absolutely in accordance with law and can never be termed as excessive. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and subsequent demands of ₹ 48,75,050 and for ₹ 43,12,391 by demand notice dated June 25, 2014. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated January 20, 2015, finding no illegality on the part of the respondents because no application was preferred for stay against the recovery of demand along with the memo of appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by this petitioner against the order of reassessment in the month of April, 2014. Thereafter, stay application was preferred during the period from January- February 21, 2015, upon which an order was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on February 17, 2015. The said order is at annexure 2 to the I. A. No. 1197 of 2015, wherein it has been ordered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that so far as interest charged over and above the returned income under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is concerned, demand was stayed and for the rest of the amount direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents because the appeal against the said order of reassessment is pending. 6. No undue haste shown for recovery by the respondent-Department : It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the order of reassessment was passed on March 25, 2014, and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the month of April, 2014. The Department has not initiated any action to recover the reassessed tax for more than a considerable period. A writ petition, being W. P. (T.) No. 5557 of 2014, was preferred by the petitioner, which has also been dismissed by this court, vide order dated January 20, 2015, as there was no stay application preferred by this petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Notice was issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for recovery on January 21, 2015. Meanwhile, stay application was preferred by this peti tioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which has been decided, vide order dated February 17, 2015. 7. A reasonable order on the application for stay filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) : It is further submitted by counsel for the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been preferred by the petitioner in the month of April, 2014, without any stay application. (II) During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, writ petition preferred against the order of reassessment was also dismissed : A writ petition, bearing W.P. (T.) No. 5557 of 2014 was also preferred by the petitioner before this court challenging the order of reassessment dated March 25, 2014. Thus, the petitioner took one more chance before the writ court. This writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated January 20, 2015. (III) Notice under section 226(3) of the Act of 1961, issued after dis missal of the writ petition and before application for stay filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) : This petitioner preferred stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the month of January-February, 2015. Meanwhile, the respondents issued a notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for recovery of the amount. This notice was issued on January 21, 2015, mainly for the reason that the writ petition preferred by this petitioner was dismissed on January 20, 2015, and there was no application for stay before the Commissioner of Income-tax (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents and we find no undue haste made by the respondents for recovery of the Income-tax reassessed. On the contrary, it is apparent that the Department has waited for a considerable period (IV) Decisions and circular relied upon by the petitioner do not hold good in the facts of the present case : In support of the contention that the respondents should have waited till the appeal was decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1992] 59 ELT 505 (Bom). (ii) RPG Enterprises Ltd. v. Deputy CIT by the Income-tax Appel late Tribunal, Mumbai, vide order dated July 14, 2000-reported in [2001] 251 ITR (AT) 20 (Mumbai). (iii) W. P. (T.) No. 6400 of 2014 (Tata Steel Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, vide order dated February 27, 2015-reported in [2015] 85 VST 346 (Jharkhand). In this context, this court finds that the following facts make the present case different from the facts of the judgments upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner : ● Order of the reassessment was dated March 25, 2014, and though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
