TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A. No. 3339/Del/2014 and as both these applications are for the same relief, both have been given the same number by the Registry. 3. Shri Pankaj Garg submitted that, these stay applications are filed for grant of stay of the whole of the proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, as well as for the assessment year 2011-12 and that his prayer includes, stay of collection of taxes that arose out of an order passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2011-12. He submitted that for the assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "A.O.") originally passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act on December 30, 2011 and that this order was revised by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Noida, by wrongly invoking his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has passed an illegal order under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10 and hence the consequential order that the Assessing Officer has to pass under section 143(3), consequent to the order passed under section 263, should be stayed by staying the whole of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) declared that in case of default in deducting the tax or paying it to the Government after deduction, the person liable to deduct the tax shall be liable to pay interest." 6. He further relied on the decision of the Hyderabad "A" Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of IJM (India) Infrastructure Ltd. v. Asst. CIT in I. T. A. No. 1814/Hyd/12 vide order dated August 22, 2013 [2013] 28 ITR (Trib) 176 (Hyd) for the proposition that the Tribunal can direct the Assessing Officer to lift the attachments of bank accounts. 7. He also relied on the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Barun Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar, judgment dated February 5, 2013, for the proposition that interim mandatory injunction can be granted to restore the status quo ante to the assessee and that the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction is granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last contested status. 8. He further submitted that he has a prima facie case, as the exemption under section 80-IA of the Act, was granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer in order passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stay of collection of taxes is required in this case. On the issue of stay of proceedings she submitted that the hon'ble courts have laid down that the limitation period fixed under the Act has to be kept in mind by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while ordering stay of assessment proceedings consequent to an order passed under section 263 of the Act. She pointed out that the limitation period available for passing an order under section 143(3), consequent to the impugned section 263 order, is only two months, i.e., on or before March 31, 2015. She relied on a number of case law and submitted that the power to grant stay given to the Tribunal, should be exercised only in accordance with the propositions laid down in these case law. On lifting of attachment of accounts, she submitted that, the assessee prayed that outstanding demand for the assessment year 2013-14 be stayed before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Noida and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Noida had granted stay of collection of taxes on October 28, 2014 for a period of two months, after laying down certain conditions. Thereafter the stay expired and as the assessee has not complied with the conditions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case law relied upon by the assessee do not come to its rescue for the reason that in the case of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (supra), the Tribunal was considering stay of recovery of outstanding demand arising out of an order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The question that the Bench answered is, whether in an appeal filed against the order passed under section 12AA(3) of the Act cancelling the registration granted under section 12A of the Act, the assessee can seek a prayer for grant of an order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand arising in the assessment year 2009-10 in an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act consequent to the cancellation of registration under section 12A of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ITO v. Vodafone Essar Ltd. reported in [2011] 138 TTJ (Mum) 284, wherein outstanding demand of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act was stayed in an appeal filed against the order declaring the assessee to be the assessee-in- default in respect to taxes under section 201(1) of the Act on the ground that, bo....