TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 42493/2019 3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. On 23.09.2019, we had passed the following order in the petition: "Issue notice. Mr. Raghvendra Singh accepts notice. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder be filed before the next date of hearing. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior standing counsel for the department at substantial length on the interplay of Section 220(6) and the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 issued on the subject of partial modification of Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.03.1996 to provide for guidelines for stay of demand at the first appeal stage. While Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is relevant, and reads as follows: "TAX CALCULATION AS PER ASSESSED INCOME   PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN INR) Pg. No. in WP Assessed Income 1994,56,00,448 1123 Retuned Income 210,24,62,383 941 Tax on Assessed Income (A) 662,54,29,843 1123 Less: Tax on Retuned Income (B) 69,83,85,442 1130 Tax on Disputed Demand (C=A-B) 592,70,44,401 - Add: Interest [U/s 234B+ 234D] [D] 229,94,31,675 1123, 1124 Total Disputed Demand E=C+D 822,64,76,076 20% of Disputed Demand Payable F= 20% of E 164,52,95,215 Prepaid Taxes Paid (TDS + Advance Tax) TDS-597,80,60,888 Adv. Tax -42,11,00,00,000 (G) 639,91,60,888 1123 Less: Prepaid taxes refunded to the petitioner (H) 394,73,92,362 982 Less: Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% of the disputed demand payable at Rs. 164,52,95,215/-. 7. Impressed by the said submission, we had restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the demanded amount. Being conscious of the fact that our interim protection to the petitioner should not be misused, we had also put the petitioner to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal pending before the CIT (A). We also directed that the final order that the CIT (A) may pass, would prevail and our interim order would merge in the said order. 8. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent revenue has, firstly, submitted that the petitioner disobeyed the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... listed before the CIT (A) on 04.02.2020. This is because we had passed our order restraining the petitioner from taking adjournments in the appeal before the CIT (A), as early as on 23.09.2019. If the petitioner desired that the appeal for the relevant Assessment Year 201112 be either heard along with the appeal for AY 2010-11, or that the decision in the said earlier appeal be awaited, it was for the petitioner to approach this Court to seek modification of the condition imposed vide our order dated 23.09.2019. The petitioner could not have disregarded the condition imposed upon it by us in our order dated 23.09.2019, and continued to enjoy the stay granted by us due to pendency of the appeal for the earlier assessment year. 10. We may h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be higher, if the additions/ disallowances result in net taxable income increasing. 12. Even if the Assessing Officer were to accept the consolidated return, as filed by the petitioner, or the said appeal were to be accepted by the CIT (A), admittedly, its liability would be to the tune of Rs. 2,247,073,334/-. However, the petitioner, while circulating the aforesaid tabulation at the initial hearing of the petition, projected the "Tax on Returned Income" as Rs. 69,83,85,442/- on the assumption that its returned income was Rs. 210,24,62,383/-, and without accounting for the several additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. Pertinently, in the Assessment order, the figure of Rs. 69,83,85,442/- is nowhere to be seen. If the p....