TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2017, considering Section 220(6) considering the fair admission on part of Standing Counsel, and considering the fact that the amount of Rs 2,52,531, equivalent to 20% of the demand, was already refunded by department on 01.06.2020, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent to refund the excess amount of Rs 10,10,119, being 80% of the demand that is already recovered from the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. With Mr. N. S. Bhati, Adv ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has been filing regular income tax return. In the instant case, return of income tax was filed on 23.07.2017 for the assessment year 2017-18. The same came in scrutiny and high pitched additions were made vide assessment order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1, against all canons of law, without disposing the stay application filed by the petitioner, without considering the fact that the petitioner has himself deposited Rs. 2,52,530/- and bypassing the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017, initiated coercive recovery on 28.01.2020 and recovered entire amount of Rs. 12,62,650/- from the bank account of the petitioner in a exparte mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat recovery of over 20% of demand, before disposal of appeal is not appropriate. He was further unable to refute the narration and positions submitted by counsel for the petitioner. He fairly conceded that petitioner is entitled to refund of amount in excess of 20% of the total demand which was recovered from him. 5. In this background, relying upon the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
