1.....
W.P. No.17684 of 2011
Maihar Cement Ltd. Commissioner of I.T.(TDS)
19.10.2011
Shri G.N. Purohit, Learned Senior Advocate with Shri
Abhishek Oswal and Ms. Uma Parashar, Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 26.9.2011
Annexure P-6 passed by the Commissioner of Income
Tax(TDS), Bhopal by which the authority directed the petitioner
to immediately make payment of installment for August,2011
and 10% of the demand in subsequent months till 31.12.2011
or disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A), whichever is earlier.
The case of the petitioner is that the assessment order
Annexure P-1 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax, Jabalpur on 23.3.2011 by which a liability of
Rs.7,45,35,540/- was assessed on the petitioner. The petitioner
filed an appeal against the order before the CIT(A), Jabalpur.
After filing of the appeal, petitioner moved to respondent No.1,
on administrative side, for staying the recovery as was found by
Annexure P-1 dated 23.3.2011. The respondent No.1 vide
order dated 8.8.2011 on administrative side, allowed the prayer
of the petitioner and stayed the demand up to 31.12.2011 or till
the decision by the CIT(A), whichever is earlier, subject to
payment of amount @ 10% of the demand every month
starting from August,2011. Thereafter petitioner moved an
application seeking review of the order on the ground that the
authority had not extended an opportunity of hearing before
passing order Annexure P-2 dated 8.8.2011. At the time of
2…..
W.P. No.17684 of 2011
Maihar Cement Ltd. Commissioner of I.T.(TDS)
19.10.2011
hearing of the review petition, the petitioner produced certain
documents and it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
it is considering withdrawal of appeal filed before the CIT(A)
and to file petition under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
as an alternative remedy. The respondent No.1 on raising
such contention granted interim order till 26.9.2011 which
reflects from the perusal of the order Annexure P-6 itself. But
the petitioner decided to press its appeal and thereafter moved
an application before the respondent No.1 for extension of the
interim order as was passed by the respondent No.1 as per
order Annexure P-6 but such prayer was declined and the
petitioner was directed to make payment as per order dated
8.8.2011, so petitioner has approached this Court. It is not in
dispute that against the order Annexure P-1 an appeal has
already been preferred by the petitioner which is pending
before the CIT(A), Jabalpur. Though the petitioner had
approached to respondent No.1 for grant of interim stay but it
appears that no application has been filed by the petitioner
before respondent No.2 in pending appeal seeking interim stay
of the recovery. The respondent No.1 exercised its
administrative powers while granting interim order but at
present the appropriate authority for staying the entire recovery
is respondent No.2, before whom the appeal is pending and the
petitioner may move an application seeking stay of the
recovery.
In these circumstances, at present we are not inclined to
entertain this petition and dispose of finally with following
3…..
W.P. No.17684 of 2011
Maihar Cement Ltd. Commissioner of I.T.(TDS)
19.10.2011
directions :-
1. Petitioner may approach to respondent No.2 in pending
appeal against the order Annexure P-1 by filing an
application for staying the recovery under Annexure P-1.
2. For a period of one week from today, it is directed that
the respondents shall not take any coercive action
against the petitioner for enforcing recovery under order
Annexure P-1.
3. The respondent No.2,on filing such an application for
staying the recovery, shall consider and decide the same
expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of two
weeks from the date of filing of the aforesaid.
No order as to costs.
C.C.as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
vj