FIROZ TIN FACTORY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise out of the orders passed on 13 March 2012 by the first Respondent and on 19 March 2012 by the third Respondent calling upon the Petitioner to pay the entire demand in the amount of Rs.36,56,61,776/ . The grievance of the Petitioner is that while the order of assessment was passed on 09 March 2012 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Petitioner was directed to pay the entire demand within a period of one week of the order of assessment.

(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 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.