| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3292 (Del-HC) : (2020) 315 CTR 0201 : (2020) 273 TAXMAN 0563 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Where assessee had pleaded for stay on demand for recovery of tax under section 220 contending that prepaid taxes lying with revenue were higher as compared to 20 per cent of disputed demand and interim stay was granted, but it was found that assessee itself computed book profit and would be liable to pay tax and this was minimum tax liability of assessee, thus, assessee had not approached High Court with clean hands, consequently, writ discretionary jurisdiction could not be exercised by High Court in favour of assessee.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Assessee was directed to pay 20% of disputed demand -
Assessee had filed return of income on which a tax liability was computed. AO by order required assessee to deposit 20% of the disputed demand. had requested for stay of demand of tax under section 220 and contended that prepaid taxes lying with revenue were much more than 20 per cent of disputed demand payable. Held: If assessee was to be fair to the Court, he would have reflected the amount which was the minimum tax liability of assessee, assuming that its return based on the consolidated financial statement, were to be accepted. Similarly, against the column indicating the 'Tax on admitted liability', the said amount would have been reflected, which would have completely changed the equation that was projected by petitioner. Explanation furnished by assessee for not disclosing the MAT tax liability, was that AO had not accepted the return on MAT basis and, therefore, the said amount was not reflected. Assessee had invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, he was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately was completely lacking in the present case. Thus, appeal was dismissed.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2011-12
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |