2016 (7) TMI 1538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion the demand notice No.AAATC6117A/ACIT/CIR/SHG/2014-2015/497 dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-V) and demand notice No. AAATC6117A/ACIT/CIR/SHG/2014-2015/1532 dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-VII), as issued by the respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong for recovery of the dues pursuant to the Assessment Order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-I), as passed in relation to the petitioner-Institution for the Assessment year 2012-2013. 3. It appears that the remaining outstanding amount under the said Assessment Order is to the tune of Rs. 710.89 lakhs against the petitioner; and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, by his notice dated 09.11.2015, called upon the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to file a detailed affidavit-in-opposition, seeking to justify the Assessment Order as also the demand notices in question. 6. Leaving the aforesaid uncalled for affidavit-in-opposition aside, we have queried the learned counsel for the petitioner that when an appeal has admittedly been filed, why the petitioner has not chosen to prosecute the remedy already taken recourse of and not sought the appropriate relief in the appellate forum in accordance with law. Only an uncertain response is forthcoming to our queries that the Commissioner of Appeals was not regularly sitting at Shillong. In this regard, it is informed by the counsel for the respondent-department that in fact, the appeal filed by the petitioner has already been posted for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us quo over recovery to be maintained for seven weeks while leaving other aspects open for consideration of the appellate authority. In the present case, as noticed, the appeal had already been filed by the petitioner even before filing of this writ petition. Therefore, the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the given set of facts and circumstances hardly enures to the benefit of the present petitioner. 8. Further, the order passed in ITC Limited (supra), rather operates against the petitioner. In the said case, again, the time for filing of the appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had expired for which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, granted time to the said petitioner to....