TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-17, New Delhi and it pertains to the demand allegedly outstanding on account of the orders passed by the assessing officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. A demand of Rs.288,41,16,037/- is said to be outstanding against the petitioner in respect of the said assessment years pursuant to the orders passed under section 154 of the said Act. The said amount is broken up into Rs.92,54,79,604/- for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs.195,86,36,433/- for the assessment year 2005-06. We may point out that, in fact, the figure was higher by Rs.30 crores but the petitioner/assessee has already paid a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already filed an appeal against the said order under section 154 and the same is pending. He also submitted that an appeal has also been filed by the petitioner against the original assessment order dated 29.12.2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 and that is yet to be adjudicated upon. Therefore, this court ought not to accept the plea of the petitioner with regard to the entire demand being time barred. 4. We make it clear that we are not expressing any final view on the matter. This is only a matter in which we are deciding the question of stay of the demand raised by the petitioner. This would obviously be only a prima facie view and it would be open to the appellate authority to take a decision in accordance with law with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 50 months prior to the date of the notice, which would entail the period beginning February 2008 and ending on March 2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this demand is ex facie bad inasmuch as section 220(2) contemplates charging of interest for nonpayment of a demand raised under section 156 and that, too, after 30 days thereof. In the present case the demand itself was raised on 16.03.2012 therefore there cannot be any interest charged for a period prior to it. We are in agreement with this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We make it clear that this is only a prima facie view. And, this view is based on a plain reading of the provisions of section 220(2) of the said Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law raised in these tax case appeals are answered in favour of the assessee. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 8. We are now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was taken in appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by an order dated 15.04.2011 has dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said demand of Rs.15 crores by way of interest under section 234B would also be liable to be set aside. Here again, taking a prima facie view, we agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That leaves us with a balance sum of Rs.20 crores out of the total interest dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t off this sum of Rs.54 crores against a payment of Rs.87 crores for the assessment year 2008-09. However, we are not inclined to accept that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as our focus is on the two assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and this was not the issue when the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 was passed. Consequently, there is an outstanding alleged demand of Rs.54 crores on account of tax and Rs.20 crores on account of interest which is, prima facie, recoverale from the petitioner. 11. Thus, prima facie, a demand of Rs.74 crores would possibly be sustainable at the present stage. Since the issue is still debatable, we feel that the petitioner should deposit 75% of this figure of Rs.74 crores whi....