The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 220: After rejecting stay application AO must give reasonable time before taking steps for coercive recovery
Having said that this is a case in which technically no fault could be found with the assessing officer, we feel that there was there was an element of impropriety in his action in issuing the garnishee order under section 226(3) on 17.2.2014, the very day on which he rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner under section 220(3). It is expected of him, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts since the petitioner, faced with an order rejecting the stay application, may need some time to make arrangements to pay the entire tax demand or come up with proposals for paying the same in instalments. That opportunity was not afforded by the assessing officer in the present cases. The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected. Taking away the amount of Rs.43.87 crores from the bank account of the petitioner may perhaps not be legally faulted, but taking into account the haste with which the assessing officer acted in the present case it seems to us that there was an element of arbitrariness in the action of the assessing officer. In our opinion, since the stay applications filed by the petitioners are pending before the Tribunal, the more appropriate course would be to issue the following directions
Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 147: Court can examine existence but not adequacy of reasons. AO is only required to provide material on which he relies to reopen the assessment
(ii) The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document. While the 2G Spectrum Report has not been supplied in this case on grounds of confidentiality, the reasons recorded have been communicated and do provide – independent of the 2G Report – details of the new and tangible information that support the AO’s opinion. These facts are capable of justifying the satisfaction recorded on their own terms, as discussed above. In this context, there is no legal proposition that mandates the disclosure of any additional document. This is not the say that the AO may in all cases refuse to disclose documents relied upon by him on account of confidentiality, but rather, that fact must be judged on the basis of whether other tangible and specific information is available so as to justify the conclusion irrespective of the contents of the document sought to be kept confidential.
AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 142(2A): AO need not examine books of account before directing special audit. Q whether accounts are “complex” has to decided by AO & Court can interfere sparingly
(ii) The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly. It is the A.O. who has to complete the assessment. It is he who has to understand and appreciate the accounts. If he finds that the accounts are complex, the court normally will not interfere under Article 226. The power of the court to control the discretion of the A.O. in this field is limited only to examine whether his discretion to refer the accounts for special audit was exercised objectively
Regards,
Editor,
No comments:
Post a Comment