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>High Court modifies deposit order, allows revised deadline, condones delay, expedites appeal hearing</h1> <h3>Mitul J. Shah Versus Principle Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Nashik</h3> The High Court of Bombay modified the order directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount in installments. The court allowed the petitioner to ... Stay of demand - petitioner is directed to deposit 10% amount in seven equal installments starting from 31.03.2019 till 30.09.2019 - default committed in payment of second and third installment be condoned and the petitioner would deposit the entire 10% amount by 30.07.2019 - HELD THAT:- As the petitioner has shown bona fides in depositing 10% amount as directed under the impugned order, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction and condone the delay of payment of two installments more particularly when the petitioner has shown bona fides to deposit the amount by 30.07.2019 itself. The impugned order is modified instead of depositing the amount by installments as directed under the impugned order, the petitioner shall deposit the 10% amount as directed by 30.07.2019. The deposit of ₹ 4,24,285/made by the petitioner shall be adjusted in the said After the deposit of the amount is made within the time as stipulated the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal expeditiously. Writ petition is disposed of. Issues:1. Challenge to the order directing deposit of 10% amount in installments.2. Discretionary powers of the Appellate Authority.3. Consideration of prima facie case.4. Condonation of default in payment of installments.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a challenge to an order directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount in installments. The petitioner argued that the circular issued by the department should not limit the discretionary powers of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority must independently assess the case and reach an unbiased decision regarding the deposit. The petitioner claimed to have a prima facie case that was not duly considered.The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner lacked a prima facie case. It was highlighted that the petitioner had availed a loan facility but failed to record the transaction in the books of accounts. The respondent asserted that no error was made in the decision taken by the authority. Subsequently, the petitioner, through their advocate, offered to deposit the 10% amount, requesting the condonation of the default in payment for the second and third installments. The court acknowledged the petitioner's good faith in complying with the order and decided to modify the impugned order.The High Court, considering the petitioner's willingness to deposit the amount by a specified date, exercised its jurisdiction to condone the delay in payment for two installments. The court modified the order, requiring the petitioner to deposit the 10% amount by a revised deadline. Additionally, the amount already deposited by the petitioner was to be adjusted accordingly. Following the deposit, the Appellate Authority was instructed to expedite the hearing of the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any costs being imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
