The allegations with regard to the CIT(A) mentioning of incorrect dates in the order sheet and the office of the CIT threatening to attach the Petitioner’s bank account and reopen Assessments for the last two years in case it fails to deposit the amount of Rs.20 Crores before 31st March, 2018, is, indeed very serious. These facts have not been disputed and/or denied by the CIT(A) and/or the CIT by filing any affidavit. (i) The aforesaid facts have been taken from the Petition. The CIT(A) must not only be fair but appear to be so, in a country governed by Rule of law. This is certainly not expected of an Appellate Authority who adjudicates disputes between the Revenue and the Assessee on a regular basis. The exercise by CIT(A) of taking up the stay application, after the appeal was heard, was only done so as to collect some revenue before 31st March, 2018. Once the CIT(A) concludes hearing the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous. Tax Recovery: CBDT should investigate arm twisting measures, dehors application of the law, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of tax and take corrective measures to ensure AOs are not overzealous in recovering maximum revenue before 31st March. Coercive recovery, Recovery of tax, stay of demand, stricturesĬlick here to download the file in pdf format
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |