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 rejects authorities' stance on dismissing petitions, emphasizes delays not caused by Petitioner. Declines strict timeframes for appeals. Directs 5% deposit within four weeks.</h1> <h3>JIK Industries Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax–2 (2) (1) & Ors.</h3> JIK Industries Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax–2 (2) (1) & Ors. - TMI Issues:Challenge to refusal of unconditional stay against recoveries in favor of the Petitioner arising out of assessments of earlier years.Analysis:1. Revision Petitions and Stay against Recoveries:The Petitioner challenged orders refusing unconditional stay against recoveries from assessments of previous years. The revision petitions filed in 2007 remained pending without fault of the Petitioner. The authorities contended that after one year from filing, the petitions would not survive, citing Section 264 of the Income-tax Act. However, the statute does not provide for academic dismissal or abatement of revisional proceedings. The Petitioner argued for stay until final disposal of appeals, highlighting delays and vulnerabilities in the assessment orders. The Court rejected the authorities' stand on dismissal of revision petitions, emphasizing that delay was not attributable to the Petitioner.2. Appeals and Deposit Requirements:Regarding appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the Petitioner faced challenges due to the bulky nature of assessment records. The Court declined to impose a rigid timeframe on the Appellate Commissioner for disposal of appeals, considering the complexity of the cases. The Court also disagreed with the Respondent's contention that the CBDT instructions mandated a 20% tax deposit during appeals, stating that such instructions do not restrict the Court's discretionary powers. The Court assessed the nature of additions made by the Assessing Officer and directed the Petitioner to deposit 5% of the principal tax demand for specific assessment years within four weeks.3. Stay Order and Future Proceedings:The Court ordered a 5% deposit by the Petitioner within four weeks to prevent further coercive recovery, with a continued stay until final appeal disposal. The Commissioner was urged to expedite the appeal process, aiming for completion within three months from the order date. The decision balanced the Petitioner's financial obligations with the need for fair and efficient resolution of tax disputes, ensuring a reasonable deposit amount and a timeline for appeal resolution.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing insights into the legal reasoning and outcomes of the Bombay High Court's decision.
TaxTMI 