Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could adjust refunds and initiate garnishee proceedings for recovery of the disputed demand for assessment year 2011-12 when the assessee had already deposited more than 50% of the demand and the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was pending.
Analysis: The dispute concerned recovery of outstanding tax demand during the pendency of the first appeal. The assessee had already paid more than 50% of the disputed demand, and the recoveries were effected by adjustment of refunds for later assessment years as well as by garnishee notices. The Court found such adjustment unsustainable in the light of the governing administrative instructions and the binding principles already applied by the Court in similar matters. It held that, in the facts of the case, the assessee was entitled to protection against further recovery action during the pendency of the appeal.
Conclusion: The adjustment of refunds and the coercive recovery steps were held to be illegal and unsustainable. The Revenue was directed to release the recovered sum with interest, and no further coercive steps were permitted until disposal of the pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has already deposited more than 50% of the disputed demand, further coercive recovery by adjustment of refunds or garnishee action during the pendency of the first appeal is impermissible in the facts of the case.