TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 4. Shri Pangam would submit that the petitioner received a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act dated 30.03,2021 requiring the petitioner to file return of the income for the assessment year 2017-18. Accordingly, on 27.04.2021 returns were filed disclosing loss of Rs.18805160/-. 5. Shri Pangam would then submit that though notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued, the staff of the petitioner were not aware of such notices as at the relevant time most of the staff of the petitioner-Corporation was on auction duty and, thereafter, on election duty. The notices were not responded to because of above reasons. The Assessing Officer resorted to best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act and passed an order on 26.03.2022 under Section 147 r/w Section 144 r/w Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. In the said order the Assessing Officer considered the income of Rs.50084646/- and accordingly levied tax of Rs.38690390/-. 6. Mr Pangam then would submit that petitioner filed an appeal on 22.04.2022 against the assessment order. Mr Pangam would then submit that demand under Section 156 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the year with the banks, out of the grants received from the Government Goa. Similarly, the sale price of the vehicle purchased was also wrongly considered as unexplained expenditure. He would then submit that there are various such amounts which have been considered as unexplained and the same need to be properly explained by the petitioner during the appeal. He then would submit that the petitioner company is owned 100% by Government of Goa and the petitioner highlighted the hardships which it would face in the event the entire demand is not stayed. 9. Shri Pangam would then submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.30 lacs at present, within a period of two weeks so that the appeal could be decided on merit. 10. Shri Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that since there was no reply received from the petitioner to the Notices, the Assessment Officer considered the case of the petitioner on best assessment judgment. He would submit that the appeal was rightly dismissed since the petitioner failed to deposit 20% of the disputed demand. 11. Shri Pangam placed reliance on the decision in Writ Petition No.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority v/s. Deputy Director of Income -tax (Exemption-1) (2015) 273 CTR 317(Bombay) that this Court considering the earlier decisions on such issue as noted by us, has held that the aspect of financial hardship is one of the grounds which is required to be considered by the authority concerned and the authority concerned should briefly indicate whether the assessee is financially sound and viable to deposit the amount or the apprehension of the revenue of nonrecovery later is correct warranting deposit. We find that at this stage such test is not applied in passing of the impugned orders by the Principal Commissioner who has simplicitor referred to the Assessing Officer's report in rejecting stay on deposit of the tax.' 12. The letter dated 10.05.2022 addressed to the Income Tax Officer by the petitioner reveal the request for grant of stay to the tax demand. It gives details about the amounts which have been considered incorrectly, i.e. bank deposits, the sale price of the vehicle and the interest. However, Assessing Officer in one line rejected such stay application vide order dated 10.60.2022 which reads thus: 'Since, 20% of the disputed amount is not paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order. (e) We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No.2 herein need not once again give reasoned order. ' 16. In view of the above decisions and the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to disclose reasons while rejecting stay application and since the appellate authority also failed to consider the stay application and demanded 20% of the disputed demand, considering this limited issue, we are of the opinion that the Principal Commissioner need to re-consider and pass appropriate order as canvassed by the petitioner, by furnishing reasons. 17. Instead of a remand to consider the application for waiver that would entail further delay, We were invited to decide on such application based on the material placed and the law as discussed above. Only in the peculiar facts of this case and with consent We have ....