Taxpublishers.in - Latest/16_DT_01 - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 95 Views


www.taxpublishers.in Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 220(6) Recovery--*Stay of demand--Appeal pending before CIT (A)* *Conclusion:* Where matter was already pending before CIT (A), he was directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on recovery of demand. Assessee-company contended that authority wrongfully rejected its request for exemption from pre-deposit. Assessee further contended that since matter was already pending before CIT (A), he might be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously without pressing for pre-deposit. *Held:* Taking into consideration the notification, Instruction No. 1914 issued under section 220 as read with OM (F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC), CIT (A) was directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on recovery of demand. Till the pendency of appeal, the demand would be deemed to be stayed without depositing the pre-deposit of 20%. *Decision:* Directions issued IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA & SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. CIT CWP-3679-2024 (O&M) 20 March, 2024 Petitioner by: Rishab Singla, Advocate Respondent by: None ORDER *Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.* 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that authority has wrongfully rejected their request for exemption from pre-deposit and had placed on record documents along with their submissions which have been ignored. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of imposing the liability of the petitioner, is without jurisdiction which he challenged in the appeal. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, senior standing counsel with Ms. Manisha, Advocate accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department and it is fairly stated by them that since the matter is already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously itself without pressing for the pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the submission. 6. Taking into consideration the notification, Instruction No. 1914 issued under section 220 of the Income Tax Act as read with OM (F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC), we deem it appropriate to direct the first Appellate Authority Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on the recovery of the demand. Till the pendency of the appeal, the demand shall be deemed to be stayed without depositing the pre-deposits 20%. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

www.taxpublishers.in

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 220(6)

Recovery--Stay of demand--Appeal pending before CIT (A)

Conclusion: Where matter was already pending before CIT (A), he was directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on recovery of demand.

Assessee-company contended that authority wrongfully rejected its request for exemption from pre-deposit. Assessee further contended that since matter was already pending before CIT (A), he might be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously without pressing for pre-deposit. Held: Taking into consideration the notification, Instruction No. 1914 issued under section 220 as read with OM (F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC), CIT (A) was directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on recovery of demand. Till the pendency of appeal, the demand would be deemed to be stayed without depositing the pre-deposit of 20%.

Decision: Directions issued

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA & SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. CIT

CWP-3679-2024 (O&M)

20 March, 2024

Petitioner by: Rishab Singla, Advocate

Respondent by: None

ORDER

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that authority has wrongfully rejected their request for exemption from pre-deposit and had placed on record documents along with their submissions which have been ignored.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of imposing the liability of the petitioner, is without jurisdiction which he challenged in the appeal.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, senior standing counsel with Ms. Manisha, Advocate accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department and it is fairly stated by them that since the matter is already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously itself without pressing for the pre-deposit.

5. We have considered the submission.

6. Taking into consideration the notification, Instruction No. 1914 issued under section 220 of the Income Tax Act as read with OM (F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC), we deem it appropriate to direct the first Appellate Authority Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal within a period of three months, without insisting on the recovery of the demand. Till the pendency of the appeal, the demand shall be deemed to be stayed without depositing the pre-deposits 20%.

7. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.