Delhi High Court
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 30 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004) 186 CTR Del 284, 2003 264 ITR 487 Delhi
Bench: D Jain, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
1. An order dated September 24, 2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit the additional rectified demand of Rs. 138.02 crores in respect of the assessment year 2000-2001, within the specified time, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :
On the completion of assessment for the aforementioned assessment year, an additional demand of Rs. 134 crores was created against the petitioner on account of certain additions/disallowances, mainly under Sections 43B, 80-IA and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said demand was later on rectified to Rs. 138.02 crores. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Simultaneously, the petitioner moved an application with the Assessing Officer for stay of recovery of the said demand still the disposal of appeal. By the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has directed the petitioner to make an interim payment of Rs. 50 crores within seven days of receipt of the said letter and pay the balance amount in six equal monthly Installments, starting from the month of October, 2003. The petitioner has also been informed that any default in payment in terms of the said letter would invite action for recovery as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Board circulars.
3. We have heard Mr. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, who has put in appearance on advance notice.
4. Assailing the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mr. Chidambaram has submitted that in view of the regular method of accounting adopted by the petitioner for the last many years, the main disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 43B of the Act is unsustainable and, therefore, the petitioner should not be asked to deposit the demand as a pre-condition for stay. It is also pointed out that in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, wherein on almost similar issues, an additional demand of approximately Rs. 551 crores was created, which was subsequently reduced to approx. Rs. 405 crores on account of the appeal effect, the petitioner was required to pay only a sum of approximately Rs. 110 crores by the Commissioner of Income-tax and in the petitioner's stay application before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was required to pay only an additional sum of Rs. 30 crores. Learned counsel would also urge that the amount deposited against the disputed demand in respect of the immediately preceding assessment year works out to less than 25 per cent, of the demand in dispute.
5. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the fact that the rectified additional demand against the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 138 crores, the direction to pay the aforenoted amount in Installments cannot be said to be unreasonable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the fact that in the immediately preceding assessment year on an almost similar set of facts, the petitioner was directed to deposit only a sum of Rs. 140 crores against a demand of approximately Rs. 405 crores, we feel that the impugned direction by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner to pay the whole of the amount in dispute as a pre-condition for stay of recovery of the demand, at a stage when the first appeal is pending, cannot be said to be reasonable.
7. Accordingly, we direct that on the petitioner's depositing with the Income-tax Department a sum of Rs. 25 crores on or before October 15, 2003, and a further sum of Rs. 15 crores on or before November 15, 2003, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance demand in dispute till the petitioner's appeal is decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
8. At this juncture, Mr. Chidambaram also prays that the Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal for the assessment year 1999-2000, which is stated to be now listed for October 22, 2003, expeditiously. It is alleged that the Income-tax Department is time and again seeking adjournment in the said appeal, with the result that its disposal is being delayed. Having regard to the fact that the issues arising for consideration of the Tribunal have recurring effect, we hope and trust that the learned Tribunal shall try to dispose of the appeal, pending before it, as expeditiously as practicable and unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided.
9. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
