You are here: Home » Economy & Policy » News
Business Standard

HC provides relief in 'high-pitched' tax assessment cases

Bs Reporter  |  New Delhi 

In the case of an unreasonably ‘high-pitched’ assessment and tax demand, the assessee would be entitled to a stay on the tax demand, the Delhi High Court has said in a recent ruling.

The court also held that Instruction No 96 of August 21, 1969, which permits stay in ‘high-pitched’ assessment cases, would still hold good, despite the fact that it has been superseded by another instruction later.

A tax demand is called ‘high-pitched’ if the income-tax officer estimates the income to be at least more than twice the amount declared by the taxpayer.

The Delhi High Court gave its ruling in a case where a search was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner (assessee) and an order was passed, assessing the assessee’s income at approximately 74 times higher than the income filed in the tax return.

The assessing officer (AO) sent a demand notice of Rs 3.57 crore and a part of the demand was adjusted against the cash seized during the search. During appeal, the AO granted stay on some part of the demand.

The assessee also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Even as this appeal was pending, the assessee filed a writ petition against the demand notices before the Delhi High Court, requesting to quash the demand notices and stay the balance demand in view of the Instruction No 96.

The revenue department contended that Instruction No 96 stood superseded by the subsequent Instruction No 1914.

According to the high court ruling, under Instruction No 1914, a demand could be stayed in exceptional circumstances where the assessment order appeared to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship was likely to be caused to the assessee. The court added that Instruction No 96 had the illustration that an assessment at twice the amount of the returned income would be a high-pitched case.

The assessed income in the case in question was approximately 74 times of the returned income and hence would fall within the expression “unreasonably high-pitched”, the court held.

The court directed that the impugned notices be kept in abeyance until the jurisdictional CIT decided the stay application.

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Mon, December 15 2008. 00:00 IST