Case Law Details
Bhupendra Murji Shah Vs DCIT (High Court Bombay)
We are not concerned here with the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We are not concerned here also with the power conferred in the Assessing Officer of collection and recovery by coercive means. All that we are worried about is the understanding of this Deputy Commissioner of a demand, which is pending or an amount, which is due and payable as tax. If that demand is under dispute and is subject to the appellate proceedings, then, the right of appeal vested in the petitioner/ assessee by virtue of the Statute should not be rendered illusory and nugatory. That right can very well be defeated by such communication from the Revenue/Department as is impugned before us. That would mean that if the amount as directed by the impugned communication being not brought in, the petitioner may not have an opportunity to even argue his Appeal on merits or that Appeal will become infructuous, if the demand is enforced and executed during its pendency. In that event, the right to seek protection against collection and recovery pending Appeal by making an application for stay would also be defeated and frustrated. Such can never be the mandate of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. We have heard both sides.
2. It is undisputed that the petitioner has challenged the demand raised in the first petition No. 2157 of 2018 in the sum of Rs. 11,15,99,897/ for Assessment Year 20152016 by approaching the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, an Appeal against the Assessment Order raising this demand is filed and is pending.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
