TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor is present. The caveat stands discharged. CM 3811/2013 in WP(C) 2004/2013, and CM 3821/2013 in WP(C) 2009/2013, CM 3824/2013 in WP(C) 2010/2013, and CM 3827/2013 in WP(C) 2011/2013,CM?3830/2013 in WP(C) 2012/2013, and CM 3862/2013 in WP(C) 2027/2013 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 2004/2013 and CM 3809-10/2013, WP(C) 2009/2013 and CM 3819-20/2013, WP(C) 2010/2013 and CM 3822-23/2013, WP(C) 2011/2013 and CM 3825-26/2013, WP(C) 2012/2013 and CM?3828-29/2013, WP(C) 2027/2013 and CM 3860-61/2013 These writ petitions are directed against notices of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on 15.03.2013 and had been received by the petitioner on 19/20.03.2013. The followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court examined the provisions of Section 220(1) as also the proviso thereto. Before we set out the observations of the Division Bench, it would be appropriate to set out the provisions of Section 220(1) as also the proviso to that sub-section. The same reads as under:- ?220. (1) Any amount, otherwise than by way of advance tax, specified as payable in a notice of demand under section 156 shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice : Provided that, where the Assessing Officer has any reason to believe that it will be detrimental to revenue if the full period of thirty days aforesaid is allowed, he may, with the previo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the consequence of default under the provisions of Section 220 are of a severe nature including imposition of interest and penalty. In the normal circumstances, an assessee would have 30 days? period to meet this demand and it is only after the expiry of such period that the assessee would entail the liabilities afore-referred. The assessee would still have the right to pray to the AO not to treat the assessee as an ?assessee in default? in respect of the demand entries under Section 226 of the Act. Where the assessee would be deprived of seeking recourse to such remedy on the one hand, there on the other, he would be exposed to liability of interest and penalty immediately o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant of full period of 30 days to the assessee for payment of tax would be detrimental to the revenue. Both these ingredients are sine qua non for appropriate compliance to the relevant provisions and violation thereof would be causa sine qua non and would defeat the very basis of quasi-judicial exercise of power by the AO. Despite the fact that inbuilt balances and checks have been provided in the Section itself, compliance to basic rule of law would be mandatory to counter-balance the extent of discretion vested in the AO. To discuss this aspect in some further elucidation, it may be appropriate to refer to certain illustrations whether (where) mischief would be covered under proviso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the circumstances or circumstances similar to the one mentioned in the above extract exist in the present cases. Mr Parasaran, the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew our attention to the note of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) seeking approval under Section 220(1) proviso for issuing a notice of demand for a period less than 30 days. A copy of the said document was handed over to us and from which we discern that the purported reason for attracting a lesser period than 30 days was as under:- This is a case of a contumacious default that has been in place since January 2006. If allowed more time Ms NIPL will assuredly explore &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in question, the notice period has been indicated as 30 days, whereas in others, it has been indicated as 5 days. So, if the petitioner was considered good enough for the purposes of invoking the normal period of 30 days, there was absolutely no reason for invoking the shorter period of 5 days in respect of other years. He assured this Court, on instructions, that no remittances would be made out of India other than in the normal course of business. He also stated that there was no intention of the petitioner to evade any taxes in India. It is only that they would take recourse to the legal remedies available to them for challenging the said notices of demand. We have already ....