TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valued at Rs. 30.30 crores (rounded off), declared net profit for the year under consideration at Rs. 19.33 crores (rounded off) and lastly claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claimed that there would be no tax liability on the petitioner. 4. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment by an order dated 30.3.2015. The petitioner was called upon to explain the change in valuation of closing stock. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner applied wrong methods in valuing the stock and thereby came to a wrong computation. The petitioner's claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was rejected interalia on the grounds that till the date of passing of the order, 58% of the units had not been booked or sold by the assessee. The assessee however, claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act even before booking and that the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in the returns filed on 21.9.2012. She concluded that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act which allowed deduction of profit derived from sale of residential units, since during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our not to press for recovery of outstanding demand of Rs. 8,14,06,750/on account of above disallowance and also to kindly grant the stay for the said demand as requested above in our case for the said Assessment year till the disposal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I Surat." 8. Shortly after the Assessing Officer disposed of the petitioner's application for stay by such order dated 15.6.2015 and when the Joint Commissioner of Incometax had not yet responded to the petitioner's similar request for stay, the Assessing Officer by writing a letter to ICICI bank on 25.6.2015 conveyed to the bank that a sum of Rs. 8.14 crores (rounded off) is outstanding to Incometax by way of tax bills and called upon the bank to pay to the department forthwith any amount due from the bank or held by the bank for or on account of the assessee, to the extent of such outstanding dues. Pursuant to such communication, ICICI bank paid to the department a sum of Rs. 20.05 lacs (rounded off) by a demand draft from the account of the assessee. It is in this background, the petitioner has made abovenoted prayers. 9. Learned counsel Shri Bandish Sorparkar vehem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under section 80IB(10) of the Act, which has resulted into substantial tax demand. Pending appeal therefore, the petitioner cannot claim unconditional stay. The Assessing Officer has already granted conditional stay. Counsel referred to following decisions of High Courts including this Court in support of his contentions : 1) CHW Forge(P) ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2013) 35 taxmann.com 602. 2) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax in Special Civil Application No.14689/2013, judgement dated 12.11.2013. 3) GSPC GAS Company ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax in Special Civil Application No..4394/2014, order dated 25.3.2014. 11. Section 222 of the Incometax Act pertains to certificate of Tax Recovery Officer and provides for mechanism for recovery of dues of an assessee in default. Section 226 of the Act pertains to other modes of recovery. Subsection( 3) thereof authorises the Assessing Officer to recover the tax dues from any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or one who holds or may subsequently hold any money on account of the assessee to pay to the Assessing Officer so much of money as is sufficient to pay the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the year 20132014 and such sales have also been made in the later years, as a result 58% of the area of construction remained unsold and 77% of the project revenue remained unrealised. She also observed that the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in the original returns but such claim was made only in the revised returns. She was of the opinion that the assessee had claimed such deduction in order to avoid application of minimum alternative tax introduced with effect from 1.4.2013 which would have been applicable to all sales made during the year relevant to assessment year 20132014 and subsequent years. 14. Prima facie, it appears that the Assessing Officer committed an error in disallowing the claim of the petitioner at both the ends. If the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the valuation of the closing stock presented in the revised return was erroneous, such valuation at best could have been rejected in which case, the valuation disclosed by the assessee in the original return would be restored under which circumstances in any case, the assessee had declared loss. If on the other hand, if the Assessing Officer had accepted such revi....