TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the Appellate Authority to pass orders in that regard. Only thereafter a view then could have been taken as regards their genuineness or veracity. In the present case it appears that the Appellate Authority did not even deem it appropriate to decide the said application even when the Petitioner claims that a prayer was made for such a decision in that regard. We accordingly find prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner as it appears that the assessment was high pitched as was claimed who stated that as against the returned income of Rs.68,33,07,140/-, the income has been assessed at Rs.461,72,35,403/-. We stay the recovery based upon the impugned demand notices. Notwithstanding the fact that we have passed an interim order today, we direct the Appellate Authority to decide the application under Rule 46A, which is pending before it, as also the appeal within three months from today, Notwithstanding the pendency of the present petition before this Court. The directions passed today shall be liable to be vacated, in case it is reported that any deliberate attempt has been made before the Appellate Authority to delay the final decision in the appeal. Objections be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner stated that in fact it was just a typographical error that while fling its return instead of mentioning Section 10(38), the Petitioner had claimed exemption in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(34) of the Act. Consequent upon the passing of the order of assessment dated 29th December, 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act as also the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act, and with a view to seek a stay on the recovery notice under Section 220 of the Act issued by Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner claims that a stay application was fled with Respondent No. 1 on 03rd March, 2020 and appeal also came to be preferred before the CIT(A) under Section 246A of the Act against the said order of assessment. 3. The Respondent No. 1 by virtue of order dated 24th June, 2020 granted a blanket stay on the demand for a period of six months up to 31st December, 2020, or the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A), whichever was earlier. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this was possible when the A.O. held satisfied upon going through the additional documents fled before it, which were in the shape of contract notes issued by the stock broker namely JM Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of 2020 challenging the order whereby the stay granted on 24th June, 2020 was not extended. In the said petition, the Petitioner sought a direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 3 to take up the appeal of the Petitioner out of turn for disposal as also prayed for a mandamus directing Respondent No 1 to pass an order extending the stay on the outstanding demand. The argument was that the order dated 18th December, 2020 whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the demand was arbitrary, as the terms of the stay could not have been modified, without any change in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Petitioner in the aforesaid petition had prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order impugned dated 18 th December, 2020 as also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus. The Court however by virtue of order dated 31 st December, 2020 did not grant any relief to the Petitioner as was prayed in the said petition including the writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18th December, 2020 or for mandamus seeking extension of the stay, however, it directed the CIT(A) to hear and dispose of the stay application in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the application for extension of stay on 18th December, 2020, the rejection of the prayer of the Petitioner for extension of stay was illegal and unjustified. It was urged that CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the said fact and granted stay of the demand on that basis alone. The second point urged was that since the demand was high pitched, the same ought to have been stayed in terms of the circulars and instructions discussed hereinabove. Reliance was placed upon Valvoline Cummins Ltd. V/s. Dy. CIT [2008] 171 Taxman 241 (Delhi). and Soul V/s. Dy. CIT (2008) 173 Taxman 468 (Delhi). 13. In the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd. the Court in paragraph 41 observed as under: 41. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the aforesaid extract would show that where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken. In this case, as we have noted above, the assessment is almost 8 times the returned income. Clearly, the above extract from Instruction 96, dated 21-8-1969 would be applicable to the facts of the case. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case it appears that the Appellate Authority did not even deem it appropriate to decide the said application even when the Petitioner claims that a prayer was made for such a decision in that regard. We accordingly find prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner as it appears that the assessment was high pitched as was claimed by Mr. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, who stated that as against the returned income of Rs.68,33,07,140/-, the income has been assessed at Rs.461,72,35,403/-. 17. Be that as it may, we stay the recovery based upon the impugned demand notices. Notwithstanding the fact that we have passed an interim order today, we direct the Appellate Authority to decide the application under Rule 46A, which is pending before it, as also the appeal within three months from today, Notwithstanding the pendency of the present petition before this Court. The directions passed today shall be liable to be vacated, in case it is reported that any deliberate attempt has been made before the Appellate Authority to delay the final decision in the appeal. Objections be fled to the writ petition within six weeks. 18. List on 13th March, 2023, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
