9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his stay petition vide order dated 25.10.2017 under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent has referred to the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as modified vide Memorandum dated 31.07.2017, has rejected the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not paid 20% of the disputed tax. The modified instructions given by the Director dated 31.07.2017 has been issued in order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), two contingencies have been contemplated by the Board and following direction has been issued: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner having not remitted 20% of the disputed tax is not entitled for grant of stay. It may be relevant to note that Clause (B) contemplates of situation where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand warrants payment of more than 20%. The other situation contemplated is where the nature of addition resulting in a disputed demand warrants payment of lower than 20%. The case on hand is one of block assessment as a result of search and seizure operations conducted in the business premises and other places of the petitioner. The nature of transaction appears to be real estate transactions and the assessments are high pitched assessments. 4. From the written instructions given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner will make appropriate arrangements for them to give their No objection certificate for encashment of those fixed deposits. The above direction shall be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, if the petitioner fails to fulfill the second condition in providing unencumbered immovable property security to the tune of Rs. 2 Crores, the order of stay will stand automatically vacated. The 2nd respondent can consider disposal of the appeal at an early date by taking into consideration that the petitioner is an individual assessee and the assessments are high pitched. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
