Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 281B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 29 November, 1990
9. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately set out the factual matrix and referred to a tabulated statement given in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions to demonstrate that the assessments are extremely high pitched assessments as for certain years, the number of times, the assessment has been increased, is more than 130 times. It is submitted that the second respondent ought to have appreciated that instruction No.96, dated 21.08.1969, read with sub-clause 2(B)(iii) of the instruction No.1914, dated 02.12.1993, issued by the CBDT vested power to grant stay of collection of demand of tax, where the assessment order is high pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the second respondent grossly erred in referring to clause 4(A)(a) of the modified instruction of the CBDT, dated 29.02.2016, to enhance the payment to 30% of the disputed demand. The learned Senior counsel referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt., Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [(1991) 191-ITR-179], wherein the Court observed that when an application for rectification filed under Section 154 of the Act is pending, the Tax Recovery Officer should not proceed with the recovery proceedings. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the assessee company is entitled for a refund for the assessment year 2017-18 to the tune of Rs.7,42,16,770/-.
1