SAMIR GHOSH,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 628/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 February 2022AY 2017-182 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if permitted by law, to agitate the issues as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the Pr. CIT passed under Section 264. The Pr. CIT had rejected the assessee's stay application for a demand raised by the AO, stating it was not accompanied by the requisite fee, despite the assessee claiming to have paid it.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT when a revision petition under Section 264 was already filed. The assessee also contended that the Pr. CIT wrongly rejected the stay application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Manish Borad, AM ]

Hearing: 24.02.2022Pronounced: 28.02.2022

ORDER

Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, Siliguri dated 09.12.2020 for AY 2017-18 passed u/s. 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Diraj Lakhotia submittd that the assessee has moved this application before this Tribunal u/s. 220(6) of the Act for AY 2017- 18. According to Ld. AR, pursuant to an assessment order passed against the assessee huge demand was raised by the AO against the assessee. Therefore, the assessee moved an application for stay of demand vide application dated 09.01.2020 which was rejected by the AO vide order dated 22.01.2020. According to the Ld. AR, thereafter the assessee moved a revision petition before Ld. Pr. CIT (Siliguri) u/s. 264 of the Act along with application for stay of demand. According to the Ld. AR the same was disposed of by Ld. Pr. CIT vide order dated 09.12.2020 on the ground that the said petition was not accompanied by evidence of payment of requisite fee. According to Ld. AR, the assessee had paid the required fee and also had enclosed challan during the proceedings. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT ignored the same and rejected the stay application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Siliguri the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal.

Samir Ghosh, AY 2017-18 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR Smt. Sucheta Chattopadhyay Ray opposes the maintainability of this application. According to Ld. DR, when the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 264 of the Act, he is precluded from filing an appeal before this Tribunal. At this juncture, the Ld. AR has preferred to withdraw the appeal with a prayer that he should be given liberty to file the appeal if permitted by law and to agitate the issues as per law. In the light of the aforesaid prayer of the assessee, we dismiss this instant appeal with the liberty to the assessee as prayed for, if the law permits.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn as (indicated above).

Order is pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2022.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →