TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 2,19,99,482/- payable under Section 220(2) of the Act on account of the delay in payment of the tax for the block period 1st January, 1985 to 24th August, 1995 was rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts are that, the petitioners are engaged in the business of production and sale of Video Cassettes and purchase and sale of video copy-rights of cinematographic films. Consequent to search on 24th August, 1995 under Section 132 of the Act, the assessment was completed on 25th September, 1996 under Section 158BC of the Act for the block period 1st January, 1985 to 24th August, 1995. The final amount determined to be payable as tax consequent to the block assessment proceedings (including appeals thereafter) was Rs. 1,10,72,290/-. The petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the three conditions that the Commissioner of Income Taxes came to the conclusion that in the facts of this case, the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions. It records that demand relating to the period 1985 to 1995 was confirmed by the Tribunal in 2001 and by the High Court in 2004. Nevertheless, except Rs. 23 lakhs out of Rs. 1.10 crores, the petitioner had not paid the principal amount for over fourteen years. It also noted the fact th at, the partners of petitioner had funds available with them to meet the demand. Further, it held that, mere prolonged litigation is not a sufficient cause for delayed payment. It also held that, the petitioner had not co-operated in expeditious disposal of the assessment as it had retracted its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the taxes even when its challenge was negatived by the Tribunal in 2001 and by the High Court as far back as in the year 2004. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner did not pay the taxes. On the contrary, it had discharged its obligation with regard to the taxes fully as late as in September, 2016. The impugned order places reliance upon the report of the Assessing Officer of which a copy was given to the petitioner. This report indicated that the partners of the assessee firm were in possession of sufficient funds to meet its obligation. The challenge to the above finding is that, it is for the Income-Tax Department to proceed against the partners of the firm and recover the money from them. This, it submitted is for the reason that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that in matters like this, the decisions would be case specific and decisions of higher forums are of assistance only if it deals with a principle of law. In so far as, J. Jayalalitha (supra) is concerned, the facts in that case were completely different. It was a case, where the petitioner's bank accounts had been frozen by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. Therefore, on the above facts the Court found that as bank accounts have been frozen and properties have been attached, the non-payment of taxes and interest was beyond the control of the petitioner. In the present facts, there is no such supervening impossibility which had made it difficult/impossible for the petitioner to pay the taxes for the block period 1985 t....