Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The Petitioner filed an application before the first Respondent under Section 220(6) on 12 March 2012. That application was rejected on the ground that the application for stay did not fall within the guidelines *2* wpl.765.12.8.sxw framed in instruction No.1914 issued by the CBDT. In a subsequent letter dated 15 March 2012 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax the Petitioner recorded that there was no reason to require the Petitioner to pay the entire amount within a period of seven days of the order of assessment though the normal period under Section 220(1) is 30 days from the service of notice. The Petitioner recorded that there was no detriment to the interests of the Revenue as the ACIT has already levied a provisional attachment under the provisions of Section 281B on 7 October 2011. The Commissioner of Income Tax has dismissed the application for stay and a communication has been issued to the Petitioner on 19 March 2012. It has been stated that the Petitioner has not been able to produce documents/ evidence to substantiate its claim as in the letter dated 15 March 2012.

3 The Petitioner challenges the rejection of the application for stay in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, who was instructed by the Assessing Officer present in the Court, states that the provisional attachment which was levied under Section 281B on 7 October 2011 covers mutual funds of a total value of Rs.36.54 Crores.

That attachment which has been levied would adequately protect the interests of the Revenue.

6 In the present case, as noted earlier, a provisional attachment has already been levied on 7 October 2011 under Section 281B by which the amount which was invested by the Assessee in mutual funds of SBI Mutual Funds was attached. The attachment was to the extent of Rs.36.54 Crores. That being the position evidently there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed under Section 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue. Merely because the end of the financial year is approaching that cannot constitute a detriment to the Revenue. The detriment to the Revenue must be akin to a situation where the demand of the Revenue is liable to be defeated by an abuse of process by the Assessee. This is of course illustrative, for what is detrimental to the Revenue has to be determined on the facts of each case and an exhaustive catalogue of circumstances cannot be laid down. Consequently, we find that there is absolutely no justification for the Assessing Officer for making an order of demand directing the Assessee to deposit the entire demand by 16 March 2012. The action is highhanded and contrary to law.

7 The Revenue is adequately protected by the attachment which has been levied under Section 281B. Hence we dispose of the petition by directing that the provisional attachment under Section 281B shall continue to remain in force pending the disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In order to enable the Assessee to adopt the remedy which may be available in law against the final order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we also direct that the attachment shall continue to remain in force for a period of eight weeks after disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax *5* wpl.765.12.8.sxw (Appeals). On the aforesaid condition, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for recovery of the demand, pending the appeal.