TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.03.2022 will tantamount to set aside the order of the Assessing Authority demand of Rs,50,21,160/- will also get set aside, the learned counsel for the Department answered in negative. So, it is very clear that in the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner herein could not be liable to pay the demand and the penalty made based on the order passed by the Appellate authority dated 20.11.2017 but status quo ante will be restored. In any event, in view of the subsequent development, the criminal prosecution laid based on the alleged failure to comply the demand notice issued on 22.03.2018 will not survive. Hence, for that reason, the criminal original petition is allowed with liberty to the Department to proceed against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was raised as penalty and penalty proceedings were initiated causing notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Citing appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the accused sought for time and stay on collection of demand. Since the accused failed to satisfy to deposit 15% of the demand as precondition, the request to stay the collection of demand was declined. Even after the lapse of two months from the date of receipt of the notice, the demand raised in the penalty notice dated 31.12.2016 was not paid. Meanwhile, the appeal preferred by the accused was considered by the Appellate Authority and by order dated 20.11.2017 in I.T.A.No.479/16-17, the penalty and demand was enhanced to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty made falls to ground and therefore, the prosecution has to be quashed. 6. To ascertain whether the order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2022 will tantamount to set aside the order of the Assessing Authority demand of Rs,50,21,160/- will also get set aside, the learned counsel for the Department answered in negative. So, it is very clear that in the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner herein could not be liable to pay the demand and the penalty made based on the order passed by the Appellate authority dated 20.11.2017 but status quo ante will be restored. In any event, in view of the subsequent development, the criminal prosecution laid based on the alleged failure to comply the demand notice issued on 22.03.2018 will not survive. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
