9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner subsequently the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 whereafter assessment order dated 31.03.2016 was passed by respondent No.1 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter). By the said order of assessment, the total income of the petitioner was computed and rounded off at Rs. 45,29,81,970.00. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [briefly "the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)" hereinafter]. It is stated that 20% of the outstanding demand being Rs. 3,67,42,100.00 was deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking stay of the demand. Ultimately, by the appellate order dated 27.03.2019, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 44,54,14,722.00 made by the assessing officer on account of capital gains. Consequently assessing officer was directed to recompute the interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act while giving effect to the appellate order. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. 7. Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction to the respondents to give effect to the appellate order dated 15.03.2019 along with interest under section 244A of the Act. 13. For the assessment year 2014-15 which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1229 of 2020, petitioner filed its return of income on 30.08.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 1,65,16,330.00. The return of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny whereafter assessment order was passed on 30.12.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act. By the said order of assessment, assessing officer added income from house property and income from capital gains to the extent of Rs. 1,05,63,437.00 and Rs. 79,36,105.00 respectively to the income of the petitioner and thus, computed the total income which was rounded off to Rs. 4,11,47,400.00. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, petitioner preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is stated that for the purpose of stay an amount of Rs. 21,35,000.00 being 20% of the outstanding demand was deposited by the petitioner. However, by the order dated 20.03.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal by holding that petitioner would be entitled to the claim of deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, the order giving effect to the appellate order was passed on 14.12.2020 by the first respondent whereby the total income was revised at Rs. 1,65,16,330.00. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the three assessment years, petitioner had deposited 20% of the outstanding demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while preferring appeal for seeking stay. These amounts have not been taken into consideration by the first respondent while giving effect to the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He has also referred to provisions of section 153(5) of the Act to contend that an order passed by the appellate authority under section 250 of the Act is required to be given effect to within three months, but in exceptional cases the said period can be extended upto six months upon approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be. In all the three cases, the orders giving effect to the appellate orders were passed much beyond the statutory period of three months or even the extended period of six months. Whether approval of the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner was obtained or not is not discernible. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ievance has been redressed. Petitioner may still have its grievance in so far the orders passed by respondent No.1 giving effect to the appellate orders but before dilating further, we may refer to two of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 153 deals with time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation. Sub section (5) thereof says that where an assessing officer is required to give effect to an order passed under section 250 or such other provisions as mentioned therein, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment the same shall be done within a period of three months from the end of the month in which the order under section 250 was received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be. The first proviso is relevant. It says that where it is not possible for the assessing officer to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period for reasons beyond his control, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on receipt of such request in writing from the assessing officer may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order if the said au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under sections 250 etc. the assessee shall be entitled to receive in addition to the interest payable under sub section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three percent per annum for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub section (5) of section 153 to the date on which refund is granted. 27. We find from a perusal of the orders dated 11.08.2020, 14.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 that the provisions contained in section 153(5) of the Act have not been taken into consideration. We also find that the requirement of paying interest under section 244A is also missing from the above orders. The above orders are also silent on the adjustment of the 20% of the initial outstanding dues paid by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while filing appeals for the purpose of stay. Lastly, the impact of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019 on the orders dated 11.08.2020, 14.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 is also required to be assessed because we find that these orders have been manually issued without quoting any Docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
