9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case is concerned, no such discretion has been exercised and by the order impugned the petitioner has been directed to deposit of 20% of the disputed amount, for availing the interim protection. It is not in dispute that while initially a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed tax amount but during the pendency of the matter another sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- has been deposited. Thus when this matter came up for consideration on 26.03.2019, a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner. Allowing the petitioner to move ahead, it is informed by Mr. Rastogi and not contested by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Department that a further sum of ₹ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be provided with an interim protection. Although Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to some advisory issued by the Department in the matter as present in the Board s Instructions no. 1914 dated 02.12.2013 as improved through subsequent advisories on the issue of pre-condition of deposit for the purpose of interim stay but it is undisputed that the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) does not invite any pre-deposit for invoking the appellate jurisdiction. It is thus completely at the discretion of the Appellate Authority or the competent authority concerned, to direct for any deposit in case the assessee seeks interim protection pending disposal of the appeal prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount but during the pendency of the matter another sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- has been deposited. Thus when this matter came up for consideration on 26.03.2019, a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner. Allowing the petitioner to move ahead, it is informed by Mr. Rastogi and not contested by Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel representing the Department that a further sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner-University . Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and considering that there is admittedly a discretion vested in the statutory authority to go below the limit of 20% so fixed in the advisories issued, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
