TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30,30,735/-, but the same was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 20.12.2018, accepting the return of income filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, PCIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and passed an order dated 20.01.2021 directing the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer has passed an order i) under Section 144 read with Section 263 r/w 144B of the Act by making an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act of Rs. 5,36,61,096/-, raising a demand of Rs. 1,34,57,582/- and ii) order under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 1,77,41,968/-; that against the said two orders, the petitioner filed Appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] on 20.09.2022 and 14.10.2022. The petitioner was directed by the first respondent to discharge 20% of the demand raised vide order dated 26.03.2022, subject to which, the balance demand raised vide the said order dated 26.03.2022 and 23.09.2022 would be stayed. Since more than 20% of the demand came to be discharged by the petitioner by way of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and hence, the petitioner made a representation seeking appropriate relief, but the same is not yet disposed of, but, in the interregnum, the petitioner, to their shock and surprise, received an e-mail from the third respondent intimating the petitioner that the refund determined for the assessment year 2024-25 of Rs. 3,74,70,364/- was adjusted towards the demand raised for the AY 2016- 17. 3.3 Therefore, the learned counsel submits that, once the petitioner has discharged 20% of the tax demand by way of adjustment made towards refund for the AY 2021-22 to 2023-24, the balance demand for the AY 2016-17 ought to have been stayed, therefore, sought for stay of the orders dated 26.03.2022 and 23.09.2022 pending disposal of the Appeals and also to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Rectification Petition dated 20.06.2024 and to issue appropriate directions on the respondent- Department to forthwith refund a sum of Rs. 3,74,70,364/- for the AY 2024- 24 which has been adjusted by the respondent-Department in respect of the tax demand for the AY 2016-17. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has sought for very many....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g an addition under Section 56 (2) (viib) of the Act of Rs. 5,36,61,096/- and raising a demand of demand of Rs. 1,34,57,582/-. The Assessing Officer also passed an order dated 23.09.2022 under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,77,41,968/-. Thus, the total tax demand made for the AY 2016-17 comes to a sum of Rs. 3,11,99,550/- 8.1 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible to set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,44,30,837/-, and if the said amount is set off, then, there would be no demand payable from the hands of the petitioner. However, the Assessing Officer, while passing the orders dated 26.03.2022 and 23.09.2022, in the computation sheet, had failed to grant such set off of the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation, and therefore, the petitioner has filed a Rectification Petition before the Assessing Officer dated 20.06.2024 setting out the said facts, apart from filing Appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] on 20.09.2022 and 14.10.2022. 8.2 In the Appeals preferred against the orders dated 26.03.2022 and 23.09.2022, the first respondent has directed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23.09.2022. When that being the case, it is not known, as to why, the respondent-Department had hurriedly rejected the petitioner's Application for refund for the AY 2024-25 and adjusted the refund for the said assessment year in respect of the tax demand for the assessment year 2016-17, when admittedly, the Rectification Petition and Appeals and Stay Petitions are pending. Thus, this Court finds clear arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in initiating recovery proceedings and recovering the demand by not considering the application for stay filed by the petitioner, despite compliance of the direction issued by the first respondent in depositing 20% of the tax demand for grant of stay by way of adjustment towards refund for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. 8.6 Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming for argument's sake that the petitioner has not discharged 20% of the tax demand for grant of stay in the Appeals, the total tax demand that is payable by the petitioner for the AY 2016-17 itself would comes around only to a sum of Rs. 3,11,99,550/-, of which, 20% of the discharge for grant of stay would come....