| Case ID |
7f2cb36d-af9b-4f9d-89c0-52b0e7534216 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In this case, the petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the tax recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer while appeals were pending before the appellate authority. The court held that the tax recovery proceedings were maintainable despite the pending appeals, and the petitioner could take necessary steps before the appellate authority to recover the dues. The court found no lack of jurisdiction in the actions of the tax authorities, and thus, the writ petition was dismissed, setting aside the interim orders previously granted. The case underscores the importance of jurisdiction in tax recovery processes and the rights of petitioners in pending appeal situations. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the tax recovery proceedings initiated against a partnership firm for penalties imposed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined whether the tax recovery actions were justified while appeals were still pending. It was determined that the petitioner firm could pursue necessary orders from the appellate authority to address the tax dues. The ruling emphasizes the procedural aspects of tax collection and the necessity for petitioners to engage with appellate processes. Key areas of focus include the implications of pending appeals on tax recovery actions and the jurisdictional authority of tax officials. The outcome highlights the balance between tax enforcement and the rights of taxpayers, reinforcing the need for clear legal pathways in tax recovery scenarios. This case is significant for tax practitioners and entities involved in similar disputes, providing insight into the legal framework governing tax recovery during ongoing appeals. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Debi Pal,
Miss M. Seal,
R.C. Prasad
|
| Petitioners |
Puranmal Rajkumar
|
| Respondents |
Tax Recovery Officer
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 1337 = (1991) 178 ITR 706
|
| Other Citations |
Kapurchand Shrimal v. TRO [1969] 72 ITR 623 (SC),
ITO v. Radha Krishan [1967] 66 ITR 590 (SC),
CST v. Radhakisan [1979] 118 ITR 534 (SC),
Kuldeep Singh v. TRO [1989] 176 ITR 204 (All.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
222,
271(1)(a)
|