Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 3305 2012 SLD 3305 (2012) 345 ITR 545
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 653 OF 2012 MARCH 15, 2012
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Firoz Andhyarujina, Sameer G. Dalal and Karthik Ranganathan for the Petitioner.Suresh Kumar and Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the
Respondent.

Nishith Madanlal Desai

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax-11*

Law:

Section:

Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default - Assessment year 2009-10 - Additional Commissioner assessed total income of petitioner resulting in a demand - Petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) against order of assessment - An application for stay was also moved before Commissioner(Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) directed that refund which had been determined to be payable for assessment year 2010-11 should be adjusted against outstanding demand for assessment year in question - Petitioner was thus, called upon to pay balance amount - Petitioner submitted in instant writ petition that Commissioner(Appeals) had failed to take due note of submission which had been made by assessee regarding additions made by Assessing Officer on counts of (i) interest paid to bank; (ii) annual letting value of house property ; and (iii) sales promotion expenses - As regards (i) it was stated that interest was allowed by Assessing Officer for seven previous years upon a scrutiny assessment - As regards (ii), it was stated that Municipal certificate of valuation produced by assessee was accepted by Assessing Officer for previous years but for year in question addition which had been made would result in an increase by 3700 per cent in annual letting value - As regards (iii), it was stated that said expenses were incurred towards legitimate professional expenditure, including towards international conferences, institution of a chair in conjunction with the International Fiscal Association (IFA) and to Government Law College - Whether submissions which had been made on behalf of assessee in regard to above three issues were required to be considered in appeal - Held, yes - Whether having regard to this position, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have devoted a more careful consideration to issue as to whether a stay of demand was warranted - Held, yes - Whether since refund which became due and payable against demand for assessment year 2010-11 had already been adjusted against demand for relevant assessment year, ends of justice would require that there should be a stay on recovery of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492