Ranvir Ranjith Shah Vs CIT (Appeals) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court granted stay on payment of 10% of tax demand since the respondent/ department failed to furnish proof against alleged demand. Accordingly, order set aside and stay granted.
Facts- The present petition is preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted that his father Ranjith Popatial Shah (late) was a income tax assessee and he has been filing Income Tax returns every year without fail. While so, his father expired on 21.06.2018, even before the due date of filing the Income Tax Returns for A.Y. 2018-2019 and therefore the Petitioner filed Income Tax Return for the said Assessment Year. While so, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Petitioner 23.03.2022 by the 1st Respondent, alleging that the Petitioner’s father received a cash of Rs.14,58,00,000/- towards the sale of the land.
But, without accepting the reply made by the Petitioner, impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2024 was passed by the 2nd Respondent, demanding the tax for the aforesaid amount. Challenging the said order, an Appeal has been preferred along with application for stay and the 2nd Respondent dismissed the Application for stay.
Conclusion- Held that that the Petitioner’s father passed away on 21.06.2018 and the 3rd Respondent issued notice alleging the receipt of a sum of Rs.14,58,00,000/- by the Petitioner’s father and except the Annexure to the said notice, no proof was filed by the 2nd Respondent for the alleged demand. Thus, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order subject to deposit of 10% of the tax demand by the Petitioner.
