2025 (6) TMI 1494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent Nos. 1 and 3 against the outstanding demands for the AY 2017-18. 3. There are two demands for the AY 2017-18. A normal scrutiny assessment of the Petitioner was completed vide order under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 144 of the Act dated 28th December 2019. Vide such order, Respondent No. 1 computed the total income of the Petitioner at Rs. 83,08,012/- after making addition of Rs. 38,92,692/-. Further, notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued on 28th December 2019 for a demand of Rs. 38,99,645/-. An appeal against the said order of assessment has been filed on 20th Janaury 2020 which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals)-NFAC, Respondent No. 5. Further, the Petitioner had filed an application for stay of demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand. Since, the Petitioner had already paid 20% of the demand arising out of the assessment order under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 144 of the Act dated 28th December 2019, therefore, no further amount was required to be paid/adjusted. As a result, amount of refund adjusted in excess of 20% of the demand has to be refunded to the Petitioner with interest. This Court has already taken this view in similar cases in Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt Ltd vs. PCIT, Goa [(2017) reported in 77 Taxmann.com 312 (Bombay)], Fastlink Connection Private Limited vs. DCIT 6(1)(2) and Ors. [in WP No. (L) 11265 of 2024] and other cases. 6. The matter does not end here. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No. 1 for AY 2017-18 initiated reasses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... However, without considering the reply of the Petitioner and without dealing with the same, Respondent No. 3, adjusted a sum of Rs. 1,28,61,270/- against the pending demand arising out of the reassessment proceeding for the AY 2017-18. This was vide email dated 28th February 2025 issued by Respondent No. 3. 8. The Petitioner has challenged the reassessment proceeding for AY 2017-18, and one of the grounds raised is that the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice under Section 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction. This is, inter alia, because the notice under Section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in place of the Faceless Assessing Officer, in violation of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act re....