2020 (3) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Respondent No. 1 - i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward -16(3)(1), Mumbai, calling upon the Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand as a pre-condition for stay of the demand; failing which it was stated that the demand would be enforced and coercive measures would be taken to recover the demand. 3. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter). Assessment status of the Petitioner is that of a resident individual. Petitioner is under assessment jurisdiction of Respondent No.1. For the assessment year 2012-2013, it was found that the Petitioner did not file return of income. Taking the view that income of the Petitioner had escaped assessment, notice under section 148 of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act declaring total income of Rs. 3,52,945.00. Petitioner mentioned that against the decision to add the amount of Rs. 2,62,05,343.00 to his income as unexplained income under section 69-A of the Act, he has preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. On merit also Petitioner stated that he was the co-owner of the agricultural property situated at Gujarat. In the course of assessment of the other two co-owners, namely, Smt. Atitiben Patel and Shri Goswami Budhigir, the alleged sale proceeds were added to their income as on protective basis. In appeal before the first appellate authority by the co-owners, the first appellate authority set aside the addition by taking the view that no addition could have been made to the in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccounts of the Petitioner on 06.02.2020, more particularly the bank account held by the Petitioner in in HDFC Bank, Chembur, Mumbai, bearing Account No. 4251570000839. It is submitted that the entire available balance in the said account has been withdrawn by Respondent No. 1. 10. Mr. Gandhi submits that after the order dated 31.01.2020 was passed, he had approached Respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -16, Mumbai on 07.02.2020 with an application for stay of the demand. However, Respondent No. 2 rejected the said application on 03.03.2020, by calling upon the Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand. 11. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, revenue, appearing for the Respondents, however, supports the stand tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f after hearing the assessee and bearing in mind the guidelines in KEC International Ltd. (supra); 3. If the Assessing Officer has taken a view contrary to what has been held in the preceding previous years without there being a material change in facts or law, that is a relevant consideration in deciding the application for stay; 4. When a bank account has been attached, before withdrawing any amount therefrom, reasonable prior notice should be furnished to the assessee to enable the assessee to make a representation or seek recourse to a remedy in law; 5. In exercising the power of stay, the Income Tax Officer should not act as a mere tax gatherer but as a quasi judicial authority vested with the public duty of ....