2025 (3) TMI 656 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - petitioner argued that they had already deposited 15% of the disputed tax thus condition imposed by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax may be reduced to 15% - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the aspect that challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2021 the petitioner has filed an Appeal before the respondent/CIT(Appeals) and the petitioner also filed a Petition for stay. However in the interregnum since the petitioner has been insisted to pay 20% of the disputed tax failing which the petitioner would be faced with recovery proceedings the petitioner requested the first respondent to adjust the payment of 20% from and out of the refund payable to the petitioner however the first respondent without considering such request rejected the Petition for Stay. However considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 15% of the disputed tax and finds the conditional order requiring them to pay 20% as onerous this Court is inclined to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner from 20% into 15%. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax stands modified to 15% which the petitioner has already deposited.

Summary

**Summary:**In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, the petitioner challenged the orders issued by the first respondent on 19.12.2024 and 03.01.2025. The petitioner had previously appealed against an assessment order dated 30.09.2021 and sought a stay on the demand to pay 20% of the disputed tax, as per CBDT instructions. The petitioner requested that this amount be adjusted against a refund due from the department, but the first respondent rejected the stay petition.The petitioner argued that they had already deposited 15% of the disputed tax and requested that the condition to pay 20% be reduced to 15%. The respondents' counsel agreed that the court could confirm this modification. After considering the submissions, the court modified the impugned order, reducing the required deposit from 20% to 15%, which the petitioner had already paid. The court restrained the first respondent from taking coercive action until the appeal is resolved and annulled the order freezing the petitioner's bank accounts, directing the first respondent to instruct the bank to de-freeze the account. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.