Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Toshiba Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, (Intl. Tax)-3 - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8629 of 2022 & CM Appl. 25939 of 2022
Decided On : 30-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging order under income tax act (Para 1) |
| 2. criteria for stay application consideration (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. no interference with order (Para 4) |
| 4. clarifications on pre-deposit and appeal disposal (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. writ petition disposed of (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5th May, 2022 directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount as well as order under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'] and the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act both dated 12th November, 2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal expeditiously.
2. Admittedly, while deciding the stay application, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have to consider three primary issues i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
3. In the present case, the petitioner has not claimed financial hardship. Accordingly, the third factor i.e. irreparable injury is not satisfied.
4. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 5th May, 2022.
5. This Court clarifies that the benefit of the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 5th May, 2022 shall not be given to the three payees and the said pre-deposit amount shall abide by the final order to be passed by the Commissioner in the appeal. Needless to state that, in the event, Petitioner succeeds in its appeal, the Petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by it.
6. However, this Court directs the CIT(A) to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months from today. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court also extends the time to comply with the order dated 5th May, 2022 for a period of four weeks.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and pending application stand disposed of.
A taxpayer challenging a tax deposit order must demonstrate financial hardship to satisfy the irreparable injury criterion, which was not met in this case.
The court upheld administrative discretion of tax authorities and directed prompt resolution of appeals, emphasizing the separation of case merits from procedural timelines.
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 has the discretion to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide an appeal within a specified timeframe.
Tax authorities must provide reasoned decisions considering principles like prima facie case and balance of convenience, and can relax mandatory deposit requirements in certain cases.
Authorities must provide reasoned decisions when rejecting stay applications and consider claims of financial hardship, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
The requirement to deposit twenty percent of disputed tax demand for stay pending appeal is not absolute and can be relaxed based on case specifics.
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
