Back
M. S. SONAK, B. P. DESHPANDE
Goa Forest Development Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.
2. The petitioner-Corporation is challenging the impugned order dtd. 2/12/2022 passed by respondent no.1 wherein the stay application filed by the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit 20% of the disputed demand immediately.
3. Heard Shri Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General along with Ms Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner and Mr K. V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
4. Shri Pangam would submit that the petitioner received a notice under Sec. 148 of Income Tax Act dated 30.03,2021 requiring the petitioner to file return of the income for the assessment year 2017-18. Accordingly, on 27/4/2021 returns were filed disclosing loss of Rs.18805160.00.
5. Shri Pangam would then submit that though notices under Sec. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued, the staff of the petitioner were not aware of such notices as at the relevant time most of the staff of the petitioner-Corporation was on auction duty and,
Assessments deemed excessively high must consider genuine hardship, allowing stays without mandatory pre-payment when necessary to protect taxpayer interests.
Assessment orders must provide adequate reasoning and consider potential hardship; failure renders them unsustainable, necessitating reevaluation by tax authorities.
The court affirmed that a stay of tax demand requires compelling proof of financial hardship, emphasizing that mere appeal pendency does not guarantee automatic relief.
The requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases. The tax authorities are eligib....
The court emphasized that the revenue authorities have the discretion to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20% pending appeal, and the circulars issued by the department cannot overwrite t....
Power to consider prayer for stay is incidental and ancillary to the power to hear appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
