2017 (5) TMI 846 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - pre-deposit - Held that - In the light of the Office Memorandum issued by the CBDT, especially keeping in view the fact that the dispute is between Government of India and Company/Department owned and controlled by the State Government and also in the light of the order dt. 25/3/2017, is of the opinion that in case the assessee deposits 15% of the outstanding demand, all the appeals shall be heard on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review petition filed for order passed in multiple writ petitions against the order dated 8/11/2016 concerning stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and their impact on the demand deposit requirements.
3. Comparison of judgments by different High Courts and the Supreme Court regarding the deposit of 15% of the outstanding demand during appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered a review petition related to a common order passed in various writ petitions concerning the disposal of applications for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The court noted the similarity in the issues and decided to dispose of the cases collectively. The petitioners were directed to deposit 15% of the outstanding demand, and the appeals would be heard on merits.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that Circulars issued by the CBDT were not considered while passing the impugned order. The court examined Circulars dated 29/2/2016, along with previous Circulars, emphasizing their significance in determining the demand deposit requirements. Reference was made to judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, highlighting the binding nature of CBDT Circulars on income tax authorities.

3. The court referenced judgments from different High Courts and the Supreme Court to support the petitioner's argument regarding the deposit of 15% of the outstanding demand during the pendency of appeals. These judgments emphasized the importance of CBDT Circulars in ensuring fair enforcement of tax provisions and the rights of the assessee. The court concluded that in line with the Circulars and previous judicial decisions, depositing 15% of the demand would suffice for the appeals to be heard on merits, aligning with the principles of fair administration and application of tax laws.

Overall, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed and disposed of the review petitions, emphasizing the significance of CBDT Circulars and judicial precedents in determining the deposit requirements during appeal proceedings in tax matters.