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 petition challenging Tax Recovery Officer's notice under Income Tax Act, imposes costs.</h1> <h3>Tulsidas Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tax Recovery Officer-13, Mumbai & Ors.</h3> Tulsidas Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tax Recovery Officer-13, Mumbai & Ors. - TMI Issues:Challenge to notice by Tax Recovery Officer certifying due amount under Income Tax Act, 1961; Seeking early hearing of appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)); Abuse of legal process through repeated adjournments.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 challenging the notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer certifying a due amount of Rs. 7.19 crores plus interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought a direction for an early hearing of the appeal before the CIT (A). However, it was noted that the impugned notice was issued after the Assessing Officer had rejected the petitioner's stay application under Section 220(6) of the Act. The petitioner then sought time to amend the petition to challenge the Assessing Officer's order dated 11th May, 2015, which was not initially challenged.During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the petitioner's conduct was questionable. While the petitioner requested an early hearing of the appeal before the CIT (A), it repeatedly sought adjournments when the hearing dates were scheduled. The petitioner's reasons for adjournment, such as the Director being out of town or the Chartered Accountant being on vacation, were deemed frivolous. This behavior was viewed as an abuse of the legal process, indicating a lack of seriousness about attending the scheduled hearings. The court considered these actions as time-delaying tactics and an abuse of the legal system.Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai, by a specified date as a condition for the CIT (A) to hear the petitioner's appeal. Failure to make this payment within the stipulated time would prevent the appeal from being heard. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to comply with the cost requirement for the appeal to proceed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
