2020 (2) TMI 212 - HC - Income Tax

Petition for stay u/s 226(6) - HELD THAT - Without going into the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit 10% of the demand instead of 20%, as directed in the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has no serious objection for this course. Writ Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order, dated 10.01.2020 directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demanded amount to respondents in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to remit a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the petitioner within the time stipulated, the order challenged before the appellate authority stands stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the demand for payment of 20% of disputed income tax amount for filing an appeal.
2. Statutory obligation for remitting a percentage of tax demanded before filing an appeal.
3. Legality of mandating payment without assigning reasons.
4. Petitioner's request to deposit 10% instead of 20% of the demand.
5. Decision on the writ petition challenging the impugned order.

Analysis:

1. The Writ Petition challenged the impugned order demanding the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand of Income Tax for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the disposal of the appeal challenging the same. The second respondent had mandated the payment of the amount for entertaining the appeal and stay petition under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. The petitioner contended that there was no statutory obligation to remit 20% of the tax demanded for filing an appeal. The petitioner argued that the requirement was illegal as it was imposed without assigning any reason. The petitioner, through counsel, proposed to deposit 10% of the demand instead of the mandated 20%, which was not objected to by the standing counsel for the respondents.

3. The High Court considered the submissions and partly allowed the Writ Petition. The impugned order directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demanded amount was set aside. Instead, the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of &8377; 2,00,000 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Upon making this deposit, the order challenged before the appellate authority would stand stayed until the appeal's disposal. The Court concluded the judgment by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions and imposing no costs on either party.