Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 1037

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l counts, is quashed in limine. Pursuant to rejection of stay application on 12.12.2019, the Assessing Officer has issued notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act to the Axis Bank, Anna Salai branch and the State Bank of India, Leather and International Branch, Kilpauk. Consequent upon my quashing of the order dated 12.02.2019, the aforesaid notices also stand quashed and the bank attachments stand lifted forthwith. - W.P. Nos.9789 & 9925 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.10392, 10511 & 10513 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2019 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi in both WPs For the Respondents : Mr.Naveen Durai Babu for Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Sr.S.C. ORDER Heard Mr.K.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Naveen Durai Babu, learned counel for Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. By consent and since a short point is involved in both the writ petitions they are disposed of finally even at the time of admission. 2. The writ petitions came up for hearing on 02.04.2019, when learned Standing Counsel sought a days' time to obtain instructions. W.P.No.9789 of 2019 challenges an order dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orking under you and the powers of stay of recovery in such cases up to the stage of first appeal may be exercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner of Income-tax.' 9. Thereafter, Instruction No.1914 was issued by the CBDT on 21.03.1996 and states as follows: 1. Recovery of outstanding tax demands [Instruction No. 1914 F. No. 404/72/93 ITCC dated 2-12-1993 from CBDT] The Board has felt the need for a comprehensive instruction on the subject of recovery of tax demand in order to streamline recovery procedures. This instruction is accordingly being issued in supersession of all earlier instructions on the subject and reiterates the existing Circulars on the subject. 2. The Board is of the view that, as a matter of principle, every demand should be recovered as soon as it becomes due. Demand may be kept in abeyance for valid reasons only in accordance with the guidelines given below : A. Responsibility: i. It shall be the responsibility of the Assessing Officer and the TRO to collect every demand that has been raised, except the following: (a) Demand which has not fallen due;(b) Demand which has been stayed by a Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situation, the stay order may be reviewed and modified. The above illustrations are, of course, not exhaustive. ii. In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. Thus he may - a. require the assessee to offer suitable security to safeguard the interest of revenue; b. require the assessee to pay towards the disputed taxes a reasonable amount in lump sum or in instalments; c. require an undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled. d. reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of a reasonable period, say up to 6 months, or if the assessee has not co-operated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations; e. reserve a right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand. iii. Payment by instalments may be liberally allowed so as to collect the entire demand within a reasonable period not exceeding 18 months. iv. Since the phrase stay of demand doe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 pars (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 years 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 in favour of the assessee, etc.), the assessing officer shall refer the matter to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the matter of grant of stay and cannot substitute or override the basic tenets to be followed in the consideration and disposal of stay petitions. The existence of a prima facie case for which some illustrations have been provided in the Circulars themselves, the financial stringency faced by an assessee and the balance of convenience in the matter constitute the trinity , so to say, and are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition by the authority. The Board has, while stating generally that the assessee shall be called upon to remit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretion to the authority to either increase or decrease the quantum demanded based on the three vital factors to be taken into consideration. 13. In the present case, the assessing officer has merely rejected the petition by way of a non-speaking order reading as follows: 'Kindly refer to the above. This is to inform you that mere filing of appeal against the said order is not a ground for stay of the demand. Hence your request for stay of demand is rejected and you are requested to pay the demand immediately. Notice u/s.221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is enclosed he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates