TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee are pending and once they are decided, the demand against the assessee is likely to be reduced to NIL. Consequently, this Court finds that the very foundation for rejection of the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 197 is self-contradictory. Accordingly, this Court set asides the impugned order dated 16th May, 2022 and directs the Respondent No.2 to decide the rectification applications filed by the Petitioner, in accordance with law within six weeks. Needless to state that if any refund is due and payable to the Petitioner, the same shall be refunded not later than eight weeks from today, in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merit of rectification application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0th February, 2022 under Section 226 of the Act seeking to recover outstanding demand for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 2018-19 aggregating to Rs. 3,55,89,80,829/-. He further states that the Petitioner replied to the notice explaining to the authorities that the demands raised were incorrect and that the Petitioner has filed various letters since 2019 seeking deletion of such erroneous outstanding tax demand and release of consequential refund. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner filed an application under Section 197 of the Act seeking a withholding certificate at a lower tax rate of 1.74%. He however, states that the said application was rejected vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1 on the ground that there exists huge outstanding demand on their internal portal. However, in the very first paragraph of the impugned order, the Officer takes note of the observation of the PAN Assessing Officer that a number of rectification applications of the assessee are pending and once they are decided, the demand against the assessee is likely to be reduced to NIL. Consequently, this Court finds that the very foundation for rejection of the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 197 is self-contradictory. The impugned order rejecting the Petitioner s application reads as under: On perusal of the submission, it is noticed that the assessee has cumulative PAN demand of Rs 322,33,71,079/- for AY 2009-10, 2010-11, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
