2017 (6) TMI 1237 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - pre-deposit requirement - Held that - As the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in requiring the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Be that as it may, from the submissions made before us we are informed that a part of the amount due to satisfy the 15% as ordered by the learned Single Judge has already been remitted by the appellant. Taking note of the above and also the financial constraints that are projected before us, we allow the appellant a period of 8 weeks from today to satisfy the balance amounts that is due.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge against an interim order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act in appeals filed by the appellant against assessment orders for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. Validity of the requirement to remit 15% of the amount assessed as a condition for stay imposed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.

Analysis:

1. Challenge against Interim Order:
The appeals were filed against an interim order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act regarding assessment orders for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The challenge in the writ petitions was against this interim order, which required the appellant to remit 15% of the amount assessed as a condition for stay. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to make this remittance, leading to the appeals before the High Court.

2. Legal Arguments and Rejection:
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the requirement to remit 15% of the assessed amount was not justified, citing principles from the Allahabad High Court and an office memo dated 29.2.2016. However, the High Court noted that only judgments from the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court would have been relevant. Consequently, this argument was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Court's Decision:
The High Court found that the learned Single Judge was justified in ordering the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, the appeal challenging this requirement was deemed to lack merit. However, considering that a part of the required amount had already been remitted and the financial constraints faced by the appellant, the High Court granted an additional 8-week period to satisfy the remaining balance due.

4. Disposition of Appeals:
With the modification allowing the appellant 8 weeks to fulfill the balance amount, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge requiring the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand as a condition for stay was upheld, and the appeals were concluded with this decision.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the requirement for the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand as a condition for stay, dismissing the appeal against this order and granting additional time for the appellant to fulfill the remaining balance.