RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-assessee with the following prayers:-

(2.) Facts of the case as borne out from record of the writ petition are that on 13/12/2019 one Assessment Order was passed by the respondent no.1-Assessment Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act') for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and a demand of Rs.2,09,44,100.00 was raised under Sec. 156 of the IT Act as specified vide Annexure-2 and 3 against which the petitioner-assessee filed an appeal (Annexure-5) under Sec. 246 of the IT Act on 26/12/2019 in the prescribed form submitting that he has a prima-facie case and the demand raised is not maintainable.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that his letter dtd. 22/01/2020 (Annexure-7) in response to intimation under Sec. 245 of the IT Act dtd. 13/01/2020 pointed out that 20% of the demand amounting to Rs.41,88,620.00 be adjusted from the said refund in terms of the departmental circulars. He further contended that he has preferred an appeal against the said order but in spite of the same, again on 25/02/2020, while processing Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2019-20, the CPC adjusted a refund of Rs.32,35,662.00 against the balance demand of Assessment Year 2017-18 in spite of the appeal and the stay application filed in response to intimation under Sec. 245 of the IT Act. It is further contended that with the belief to be saved, the petitioner-assessee filed a stay application on 30/06/2020 (Annexure-9) which was disposed of on 22/01/2020 whereby stay on recovery of the balance demand was granted. The same was also passed vide order dtd. 23/03/2021.