2017 (9) TMI 1592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji. By this order the ACIT, Respondent No.1, rejected the Petitioner's application for permission under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Revenue. Mr. Pardiwala for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 281. It is clear that this is a section that is meant to protect the interest of the Revenue, and, specifically to guard against fraudulent transfers designed to defeat recovery by the revenue. There are almost exactly parallel provisions in the Companies Act. Section 281 of the Income Tax Act reads thus : "SECTION 281 CERTAIN TRANSFERS TO BE VOID (1) Where, during the pendency of any proceedings u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....specific. The section demands, above all, precision. An application is for prior permission to create a charge or effect a transfer in respect of a defined asset. Such an application cannot be disposed of by resorting to generalities ("likelihood", "huge demands", "might be revoked", etc). There is no room in considering an application under Section 281 for a response that is speculative, predicated on imponderables and unknowns such as litigation outcomes, or on suppositions that all stay orders obtained by an assessee are bound to be vacated and an assessee's appeals lost. Nothing in our experience suggests this to be remotely true. 5. We have considered Mr. Pardiwala's submission in regard to the tenability of the impugned order. W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t both sides will have regard to not only Section 281, but also the provisions of Circular No.4/2011 dated 19th July 2011 setting out the guidelines for the grant of prior permission under Section 281. 9. We will note at this stage Mr. Pardiwala's submission that the Petitioner has available assets in excess of Rs. 80,000 crores of which roughly assets of Rs. 49,000 crores assets have some form of encumbrance on them, while the remaining are not so encumbered. We have noted this not with a view to predetermine the 1st Respondent's decision, but to assist the 1st Respondent in more precisely formulating and identifying the information and documentation that he requires, and also to draw attention to the wording of Section 281 and the c....