M/S SHYAM OIL EXTRACTIONS PVT. LTD. V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, INCOME -TAX,

WA/195/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the dismissal of their Writ Petition challenging the high tax demand assessed by the Income Tax authorities. The appellant contested an assessment order that demanded Rs. 13,84,43,552, significantly higher than their reported income and tax paid. The appellant had already deposited a substantial amount and sought a stay on the recovery of the remaining demand, which was denied by the tax authorities. The High Court's decision to allow the appeal was based on the excessive nature of the tax demand relative to the appellant's reported income and the ongoing status of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690445 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHOUDHARY; VIJAY CHAWLA
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELABH DUBEY
• Keywords: High pitch assessment; Income tax appeal; Stay of Demand Notice; Monthly installment payment
• Section: 147; 156; 220(6)

Judgement Text

" 1 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) 2024:CGHC:37464-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Judgment reserved on : 13.09.2024] [Judgment pronounced on : 24.09.2024] In WRIT APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 14.2.2024 passed in WPT No.9 of 2024) • M/s Shyam Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd., a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at Village Banari, PO Naila, Janjgir 495668, Chhattisgarh, through one of its Directors and Authorized Signatory, Liladhar Sulatania, S/o Late Shri Hariram Sulatania, aged about 69 years, Resident of PO Banari, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Central, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Circle Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate, along with Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 14.2.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in W.P.(T) No.9 of 2024 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the Appellant Company finding no merit and affirming the Order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 – the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax whereby the Appellant’s application for stay of demand notice has been rejected reducing the installment facility payable to 20 installments, i.e., Rs.13,85,000/- per month, till such installment reaches 20% of the total tax liability of Rs.13,84,43,552/- or till the disposal of the appeal pending consideration before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Challenge has been made on the ground that the impugned Order dated 14.2.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition is absolutely unsustainable and contrary to law and facts available on record. 3 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) 3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- The Appellant Company for the assessment year 2018-19 filed return of income on 24.10.2018 showing their total income of Rs.26,93,557/- and accordingly they paid tax of Rs.7,65,769/- on the said returned income. However, on 28.3.2023, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) creating demand of Rs.13,84,43,552/- and accordingly issued the demand notice under Section 156 of the Act for the said amount of Rs.13,84,43,552/- along with the said assessment order. The said demand of Rs.13,84,43,552/- being 51 times higher than the complete returned income, i.e., Rs.26,93,557/- and 180 times higher than the amount of tax paid by the assessee, i.e., Rs.7,65,769/-, the Appellant had preferred a statutory appeal against the said assessment order dated 28.3.2023 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 19.4.2023 and the said appeal is still pending consideration before the said Appellate Authority. Subsequently, on 3.5.2023, the Appellant 4 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) filed an application for grant of stay against the recovery of the outstanding demand raised under Section 220(6) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that the said assessment is extremely on high pitch and detrimental and so also the payment of 20% of the total tax demand which comes to Rs.2,76,88,710/- is more than 10 times of total returned income and 36 times more than the amount of tax paid by the assessee on his own volition for the said assessment year, i.e., Rs.7,65,769/-. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by its Order dated 3.7.2023 rejected the said application of the Appellant granting the Appellant to make partial payment of 20% of the total tax demand with an arrangement to pay a monthly installment of Rs.30,73,524/- to be paid before 15th of every month starting from July, 2023 till March, 2024 which reaches 20% of the total outstanding demand. Assailing the said order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Appellant filed an application before the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax (Central) for review and reconsideration of the said arrangement provided by 5 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) the Assessing Officer. However, by order dated 11.12.2023, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the said application preferred by the Appellant partly modifying the order dated 3.7.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(6) of the Act directing the payment of the total tax liability of Rs.13,84,43,552/- by 20 monthly installments i.e., Rs.13,85,000/-, till such installment reaches 20% of the said total tax demand or till the disposal of the appeal pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, whichever is earlier. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid two orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the Appellant filed W.P.(T) No.9 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned Order dated 14.2.2024 affirming the order dated 3.7.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which gave rise to the filing of the present Writ Appeal. 6 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) 4. Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned Counsel for the Appellant Company, would submit that said demand of Rs.13,84,43,552/- is the high pitch assessment as it is 51 times higher than the complete returned income, i.e. Rs.26,93,557/-, and 180 times higher than the amount of tax paid by the assessee, i.e., Rs.7,65,769/- and the Appellant has already deposited Rs.41,55,000/- in three installments and as the statutory appeal is already pending consideration before the Appellate Authority since 19.4.2023 and this Court while entertaining the present Writ Appeal on 23.4.2024 also has granted interim relief directing the parties to maintain the status quo which is still prevailing, therefore, it would be expedient if the said appeal pending consideration before the Appellate Authority is directed to be decided at the earliest, extending the said interim order dated 23.4.2024 passed by this Court till the said statutory appeal is finally decided by the Appellate Authority. 5. Mr. Amit Choudhary, learned Counsel for the Respondent Income Tax, would submit that the facility of installment has been granted by the Competent Authority and therefore the Appellant 7 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) Company could easily pay the tax amount in installments and no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant Company. As such, the present Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for parties, considered their rival submission and also gone through the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the said demand of Rs.13,84,43,552/- is a high pitch assessment as the total returned income is Rs.26,93,557/- and the said demand is 51 times higher than the said complete returned income of Rs.26,93,557/- and 180 times higher than the amount of tax paid by the assessee which is Rs.7,65,769/-, against which the Appellant has preferred a statutory appeal on 19.4.2023 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) i.e., the Appellate Authority, which is pending consideration for more than 1 year and 5 months and is still undecided by the Appellate Authority. Furthermore, the Appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.41,55,000/- and this Court on 23.4.2024 also has 8 / 8 (W.A. No. 195 of 2024) granted an interim order in favour of the Appellant qua the recovery. 8. In that view of the matter, since the statutory appeal is still pending consideration before the Appellate Authority for a period of 1 year and 5 months and the Appellant has also already deposited Rs.41,55,000/- as well as the interim order dated 23.4.2024 passed by this Court is also operating for 5 months, in our considered opinion, it would be expedient to direct the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and till the said appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, the interim order dated 23.4.2024 passed by this Court shall remain in operation. It is accordingly ordered so. 9. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 14.2.2024 passed by learned Single Judge is set-aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed with the above-stated order/direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge sharad SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2024.09.24 17:50:38 +0530 "