TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee i.e. the Employees' Provident Fund Organization was set up under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2.2 The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Noida passed an order dated 31st March, 2014 under Section 201(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") holding the assessee in default for not deducting the tax at source on payments made on account of settlement on withdrawal accumulated balance under Rule 9, 10 of part A of Schedule IV of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is held to be in default u/s 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the total liability u/s 201(1) is Rs. 337,009,802/-, Rs. 208,717,439/- and Rs. 78,135,967/- in respect of F.Y. 2010-11, 2001-12 and 2012-13, relevant to As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....253:- (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [before the 1st day of October, 1998] or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 154, section 250, section 271, section 271A or section 272A ; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997 ; or [(ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC.] (c) [an order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (SC) has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has inherent power to stay the demand when the appeal is pending for disposal before him. Regarding this, few other decisions are as follows: 1. Debasish Moulik Vs. DCIT, (1998) 231 ITR 737 (Cal.); 2. Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2012) 246 CTR 113 (Raj.) 3. Prem Prakash Tripathi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors, (1994) 208 ITR 461 (All) : (1994) 121 CTR (All) 77; 4. Smita Agrawal (HUF) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax , (2009) 26 DTR (All) 333: (2010) 230 CTR (All) 173: (2010) 321 ITR 491 (All); 5. Valvoline Cummins Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors., (2008) 217 CTR (Del) 292: (2008) 8 DTR (Del) 145: (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Delhi); 6. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Part I of Schedule IV of the Act are not applicable to statutory fund created under the provisions of P.F. Act. He further submitted that the assessee organization is set up only to cater the needs of several employees of private organizations. If the stay is not granted, the interest of several employees shall be adversely affected. 10. On the other hand, learned Department Representation vehemently opposed the stay and submitted that the assessee should approach the Assessing Officer for stay. 11. After considering the rival submission, we are of the view that the appellant organization is only acting as custodian of employees' funds and on mere perusal of IVth Schedule of the Act, it seems that the provision of IVth Schedule may not....