TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve reflected the amount of ₹ 2,247,073,334/ which was the minimum tax liability of the petitioner, assuming that its return based on the consolidated financial statement, were to be accepted. Against the column indicating the Tax on admitted liability (Returned Income) , the said amount of ₹ 2,247,073,334/- would have been reflected, which would have completely changed the equation that was projected before us by the petitioner. The explanation furnished by Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner for not disclosing the MAT tax liability, is that the Assessing Officer had not accepted the return on MAT basis and, therefore, the said amount was not reflected. We do not find any weight in this submission. Since, the MAT liability, even according to the petitioner, was the higher of the two figures i.e. the tax on the net taxable income (as returned by the petitioner), and the MAT amount, the petitioner could not have run away from the fact that its liability was, at least, if not more than ₹ 2,247,073,334/-. Thus, we were clearly misled by the petitioner at the preliminary hearing of the petition which led to our passing the interim or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the petitioner is that 20% of the tax on amount in dispute (i.e. the amount assessed minus the amount returned) already stands paid/ credited. The issue raised in this petition would require deeper consideration. Considering the aforesaid, we restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the demanded amount. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal pending before the CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) may proceed to adjudicate the appeal uninfluenced by this order. In case, the said appeal is decided before the next date, we make it clear that this interim order shall merge in the order that the CIT(A) may pass. List on 17.01.2020. 4. This order had been passed by us on the basis of a tabulation placed before us by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the said date, which is on record. The said tabulation is relevant, and reads as follows: TAX CALCULATION AS PER ASSESSED INCOME PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN INR) Pg. No. in WP Assessed In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed adjustment/ credit to the tune of ₹ 175,33,83,084/-. The said figure was arrived at after deducting from the prepaid taxes of ₹ 639,91,60,888/-, the prepaid tax refund of ₹ 394,73,92,362/- and tax on admitted liability (returned income) of ₹ 69,83,85,442/-. Thus, the projection of the petitioner was that the prepaid taxes lying with the revenue were to the tune of ₹ 175,33,83,084/-, and the said amount was much more than the 20% of the disputed demand payable at ₹ 164,52,95,215/-. 7. Impressed by the said submission, we had restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the demanded amount. Being conscious of the fact that our interim protection to the petitioner should not be misused, we had also put the petitioner to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal pending before the CIT (A). We also directed that the final order that the CIT (A) may pass, would prevail and our interim order would merge in the said order. 8. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent revenue has, firstly, submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation furnished by Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. However, we find that there is a much more serious issue raised by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. The issue raised is that of gross suppression and misstatement by the petitioner, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability/ refund due from/ to the petitioner. 11. It is pointed out by Mr. Raghvendra Singh that the petitioner was required to file a consolidated return in respect of the merged entity i.e. the petitioner, which was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner had, in the said return, computed the net taxable income (loss) as Rs.( )11,977,945,558/-. The assessment order computes the taxable income after making several additions and disallowances, ₹ 1994,56,00,488/- which is under challenge before the CIT (A). Pertinently, even if the consolidated financial statement furnished by the petitioner were to be accepted as true and correct, the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) liability worked out by the petitioner itself is ₹ 2,247,073,334/-. Pertinently, the petitioner itself computed the book profit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
