TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer, respondent No.1 (the 'ITO', for short), had issued summons on 15.12.2014 under Section 131 along with notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), calling upon the petitioner-Bank to submit details of the Fixed Deposits held by the Visveswarayya Technological University, Belagavi ('the VTU', for short) and the interest paid on such deposits during the financial years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, and the Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS', for short) on such payment, and to show reasons as to why these deductions have not been made, and quarterly statements filed under Section 194A of the Act, in respect of such payments. By letter dated 26.12.2014, the petitioner Bank informed the ITO that it did not deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2011-12 to 2014-2015. 5. Since the petitioner-Bank was aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.02.2015, it filed an appeal under Section 246A(1)(ha) and filed the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. On 19.03.2015, the Income Tax Officer issued an order under Section 220(6) of the Act, directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed demand before 27.03.2015. However, by letter dated 27.03.2015, the petitioner-Bank expressed its strong objections to the said order, and requested the ITO to grant stay of recovery of the disputed demand until disposal of the appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. On 06.04.2015 and on 10.04.2015, the petitioner- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner has ignored the illustration (a) contained in para-C of Instruction No.1914. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 10. This Court has asked a pointed question to the learned counsel for the petitioner: whether the petitioner-Bank had raised the contention before the ITO with regard to the benefit granted to the petitioner Bank under the proviso attached to Section 201 (1) of the Act or not? To this pointed query, the learned counsel has given a very evasive answer. According to him, the said contention was, indeed, raised before the Income Tax Officer. However, when this Court asked him to point out where the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k can claim the right to be exempted from depositing the tax liability or not, prior to its appeal being admitted for hearing? 14. According to Section 249 (4) of the Act, no appeal in the chapter shall be admitted, unless at the time of filing an appeal, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which was payable by him. Thus, Section 249(4) of the Act clearly stipulates that the assessee is duty bound to pay the amount equal to the amount of advance tax. However, the proviso bestows a discretionary power upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to exempt the assessee from the portion of the provisions of clause-B mentioned above. 15. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether the Commissioner(Appeals) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, provided that demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an Appellate Authority, or the Court earlier. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show this Court as to which Appellate Authority, or by which Court the issues involved in the present case have already been decided, that, too, in favour of the petitioner-Bank. Thus, obviously, the petitioner-Bank cannot claim that it falls under illustration (a) of para-C of Instruction No.1914. 19. The learned counsel has further pleaded that, since the petitioner-Bank is a public sector undertaking, it should not be imposed with the liability to deposit the entire tax liability. However, the said contention is unacceptab....