2022 (11) TMI 1212 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - direction for deposit of 20% of the disputed amount of tax - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax while passing the order dated 30.08.2022 had solely relied upon the circular of 2016, which was partially modified in the year 2017 and directed for deposit of 20% of the disputed amount of tax and rejected the stay application while the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax proceeded to consider the audit report and balance sheet partially and considering the assets while ignoring the liability part had rejected the stay application holding the financial position of the petitioner to be strong enough and directed for depositing 20% of the disputed amount of tax. This Court finds that while considering the stay application, neither the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax nor Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had considered three basic principles i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, as held by Delhi High Court in Tata Teleservices Limited 2022 (3) TMI 1403 - DELHI HIGH COURT In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The orders impugned are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar for consideration of stay application of the petitioner afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order requiring pre-deposit of outstanding tax payment for assessment year 2016-17; Rejection of stay application against demand; Consideration of financial position for payment of impugned tax demand; Interpretation of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the export of frozen buffalo meat, challenged orders demanding pre-deposit of outstanding tax payment and rejecting the stay application against the demand for the assessment year 2016-17. The dispute arose when a notice for reassessment was issued, leading to a demand of Rs.197,41,95,820. The petitioner filed statutory appeals and stay applications, which were rejected based on the CBDT instructions of 2016 and 2017, emphasizing the need for a 20% deposit of the disputed demand. The petitioner argued that the financial position, including liabilities, was not considered adequately by the tax authorities.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the filing of an appeal within the statutory period should deem the Assessee as "not in default." However, the court clarified that the Assessing Officer has the discretion to impose conditions treating the Assessee as not in default in respect of the amount in dispute. Mere pendency of an appeal does not absolve the Assessee from default; the Assessing Officer must impose conditions justifying the decision.

The court found that the tax authorities did not consider the basic principles of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss while rejecting the stay application. Citing precedents, the court emphasized the need for a holistic assessment of the Assessee's financial position before demanding a pre-deposit. Consequently, the court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh consideration of the stay application.

In conclusion, the court's decision underscored the importance of a balanced assessment of an Assessee's financial position and the necessity to consider all relevant factors before demanding a pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount. The judgment clarified the discretion of the Assessing Officer in imposing conditions and highlighted the need for a thorough evaluation of the Assessee's circumstances before enforcing payment.