| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7393 (Del-HC) : (2020) 312 CTR 0373 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Where assessee had obtained the stay of the outstanding demand while, on the other hand, it was pressing for refund of amount due in respect of previous assessment years. In cases where there was stay of recovery of demand of tax, Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Tribunal had extended the stay originally granted -
Assessee assailed the order passed by Tribunal, whereby Tribunal had extended the stay originally granted on the outstanding demand. Tribunal had observed that assessee was not responsible for the delay in disposal of the appeal and, therefore, stay was extended beyond the period of 365 days. Held: Where there was stay of recovery of demand by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should deal with such cases on priority. Assessee had obtained the stay of outstanding demand while, on the other hand, it was pressing for refund of amount due in respect of previous assessment years. In cases where there was stay of recovery of demand of tax, Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay.
REFERRED : Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged with Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd) & Ors. v. ACIT & Anr. (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2304 (Del-HC) M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Nokia Siemens Networks Pvt. Ltd.) v. DCIT [S.A No. 68/Del/2019 In I.T.A. No. 909/DEL/2017, dt. 1-2-2019]
FAVOUR : Directions issued
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|