TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging tax demand stay order for AY 2014-15. Upholds 1st respondent's discretion. Directs speedy appeal disposal.</h1> <h3>M/s. Gorlas Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-2 and another</h3> M/s. Gorlas Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-2 and another - [2021] 435 ITR 243 (Telangana) Issues:Assailing correctness of order for stay of tax demand under Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. year 2014-15; Reopening of income admitted in return; Appeal to 1st appellate authority pending; Petitioner's request for stay of tax demand; Disposal of request by 1st respondent; Financial difficulty due to COVID-19; Consideration of CBDT instructions; Grant of absolute stay; Compliance with conditional stay orders; Filing of writ petition challenging order; Dismissal of writ petition; Directions to dispose of appeal expeditiously.Issue 1: Assailing correctness of order for stay of tax demand under Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. year 2014-15The petitioner challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent regarding the demand of tax for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority proposed a significant revision to the income declared by the petitioner, resulting in a high assessment compared to the income admitted. The petitioner sought a stay of the tax demand pending appeal to the 2nd respondent, citing financial difficulty and lack of reasons for the reassessment.Issue 2: Reopening of income admitted in returnThe assessing authority issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, proposing a substantial addition to the income admitted by the petitioner in the return for the Asst. year 2014-15. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of reasons provided for the reopening of the assessment and the disproportionate nature of the revised income amount.Issue 3: Petitioner's request for stay of tax demandThe petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking a stay of the tax demand pending the appeal process. The petitioner argued that the 1st respondent's decision to direct payment of 20% of the outstanding balance demand in installments was arbitrary and failed to consider the financial difficulty faced by the petitioner, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.Issue 4: Consideration of CBDT instructions and grant of absolute stayThe petitioner contended that the 1st respondent should have granted an absolute stay based on CBDT instructions. However, the court noted that the CBDT instructions provided for the authorities to grant stay pending appeal by directing payment of 20% of the demand. The court emphasized the need to consider prima facie case, financial stringency, and balance of convenience while deciding on the grant of stay.Issue 5: Compliance with conditional stay ordersThe court observed that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional stay orders issued by the 1st respondent, despite being granted additional time for payment. The petitioner's subsequent failure to make the conditional payment as directed raised questions about the petitioner's intentions and compliance with the orders.Issue 6: Filing of writ petition challenging orderThe petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent regarding the stay of tax demand. The petitioner sought relief from the court, arguing that the 1st respondent's decision was arbitrary, erroneous, and illegal, especially in light of the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner.Issue 7: Dismissal of writ petitionThe court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, finding no valid ground for interference with the order passed by the 1st respondent. The court noted that the 1st respondent had considered all relevant facts, including the petitioner's requests for reconsideration, in exercising discretionary powers to grant conditional stay.Issue 8: Directions to dispose of appeal expeditiouslyIn response to the petitioner's contention regarding the pending appeal before the 2nd respondent, the court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The court aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the appeal process for the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
