| Case ID |
1aaf3881-f145-4250-8d4a-565d6a3ebea9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MISC. CASE Nos. 3703 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION (CASE) |
| Decision Date |
Jan 28, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner should treat the petitioner as not being in default regarding the disputed tax amounts pending appeal. The court emphasized that the discretion provided under section 220(6) should be exercised in accordance with the instructions from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which dictate that if the demand in dispute relates to issues previously decided in favor of the assessee, the assessee should not be considered in default. The court directed that the petitioner should not withdraw the fixed deposit amount during the appeal process but could operate other accounts. The case reflects significant procedural aspects of tax law and the discretionary powers of tax authorities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established protocols and directives. |
| Summary |
This case involves the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange challenging the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the assessment of its income for several years. The Assistant Commissioner had issued notices stating that the income had escaped assessment and subsequently attached the fixed deposits of the petitioner. The petitioner sought relief under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, asserting that the demands were based on issues already decided in its favor in previous rulings. The Orissa High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for tax authorities to follow directives from the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the treatment of assessable defaults. This case highlights the intersection of tax law, administrative discretion, and the rights of entities under tax scrutiny, making it a significant reference point for similar disputes in the future. |
| Court |
Orissa High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
A.K. Patnaik,
M. Papanna
|
| Lawyers |
Jayant Das,
A.N. Das,
A.N. Patnaik,
N. Sarkar,
E.A. Das,
D.K. Rout,
I. Shabiya,
M.R. Malu,
S.K. Dasmohapatra,
Akhil Kumar Mohapatra,
J.P. Chowdhury
|
| Petitioners |
Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3606 = (2006) 283 ITR 562
|
| Other Citations |
Orissa Forest Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CCE 1982 ELT 875 (Ori.),
Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K.Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC),
State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das AIR 1993 Ori. 180,
State of Orissa v. Member, Sales Tax Tribunal [1971] 28 STC 652 (Ori.),
ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430,
Prem Prakash Tripathy v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 461/ 75 Taxman 107 (All.),
Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330,
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1983 SC 603
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
220
|