The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0141 (Mum-Trib)


Section 220(6) Section 115

Once AO himself had decided not to take coercive measures, for the time being, it cannot be open to the Tribunal to direct assessee to pay any part of the disputed demands when the powers of recovering the disputed taxes are with AO, and when, according to him, there are no fetters imposed on the exercise of such powers.

Recovery - Stay under section 220(6) - Interim stay already granted by High Court - Powers of AO

AO computed fair market value of shares at Rs. 261.20 per share, and consideration for the transfer of the combination of assets and liabilities. Assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), but without much success. While CIT(A) upheld demand in principle, he modified the quantum of valuation of shares @ Rs. 145.40 per share, as against the valuation @ Rs. 261.20 per share. The demand recomputed, in the proceedings giving effect to the appellate order of the CIT(A) and inclusive of interest under section 115P, was stated to be at Rs. 37,86,34,91,500 (i.e. Rs. 3,786.34 crores). Even as the appeal was pending before CIT(A), the assessee had moved an application under section 220(6) before the AO praying that the assessee be treated 'as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in appeal, even though the time for payment had expired, as long as such appeal remains undisposed of. Pending decision on this application, assessee filed writ petition before Bombay High Court. The AO was directed to dispose of the said petition, and the AO was further directed that in the event of his deciding this matter against the assessee, 'no coercive proceedings would be adopted by the revenue for a period of two weeks. Vide Order, dated 18-10-2019, the AO rejected the request for a blanket stay and directed the assessee to pay 20% of the outstanding demand within 30 days of the receipt of the impugned order. Pr.CIT also directed the assessee to pay 20% of the disputed demand but allowed the assessee concession of paying it in fortnightly instalments spread till 28-2-2020. Assessee filed a writ petition before Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court was pleased to admit the said writ petition and grant interim relief stating that: 'we are inclined to continue the protection granted by the Order, dated 1-10-2019'. This protection was extended on 10-1-2020 and 31-1-2020. Before the next date of hearing Covid-19 pandemic started, and all the interim releifs, which were in operation at that point of time, were directed to be, vide successive orders of High Court continued to be in operation. Held: When the powers of recovering the disputed taxes are with the AO, and when, according to him, there are no fetters imposed on the exercise of such powers. The question of such directions would have relevant only when the Tribunal was to pass any stay order subject to such a condition, but given the considerate approach adopted by the field authorities, there was no need to pass a stay order in this case. As for the request for an early hearing made by the senior counsel, the Tribunal had taken note of no objection thereto by the revenue authorities and the submission of the DR that the AO is in the process of filing cross-appeal, along with a petition seeking condonation of delay, against the partial relief granted by the CIT(A).


FAVOUR : Matter remanded/In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2018-19



'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : /