9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, petitioner seeks quashing of the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(2)(2), Mumbai dated 27.12.2018 as well as the consequential garnishee notices and individual recovery notices issued to the directors of the petitioner under Section 179 of the Act. 3. For the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition, it may not be necessary to delve into the factual controversy in detail. Suffice it say that in the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee had added back to its total income its investment in Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. as a non-deductible expenditure. However, the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorized representative of the petitioner could not appear for the hearing on 14.11.2019 but subsequently appeared on 26.11.2019 and made oral submissions. However, no order has been passed on the stay prayer. While stay application was pending, notices dated 03.01.2020 under Section 226(3) of the Act were issued to Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund and to the debtors of the petitioner. In addition, notices under Section 179 of the Act dated 01.01.2020 were issued to the individual directors of the petitioner for recovery of the amount covered by the notice of demand. It is at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed. 9. Mr. Mistry submits that the demand itself is untenable in law. Petitioner has a good prima facie case and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner; without taking a decision either on the appeal or on the prayer for stay, it was not justified on the part of the revenue authority in issuing the impugned notices. In the circumstances, rejection of the prayer for stay by the Assessing Officer when the appeal is pending before the first appellate authority and the stay prayer is pending before the administrative Commissioner, in our view, would not be of much consequence. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Act, which has been registered as CIT (A)-20.Mumbai/10324/2018-19 should be heard and decided by the first appellate authority in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
