9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed demand for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-2017 within four weeks. - W.P.(C) 6172/2021& CM APPL. 19561/2021 AND W.P.(C) 6200/2021& CM APPL. 19634/2021 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Madhur Agga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6200/2021 CM No.19634/2021[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 3. It is the contention of Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that even while the petitioner s appeal, against the assessment order dated 23.12.2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is pending consideration before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short CIT(A) ], a substantial amount has been recovered from the petitioner, which is, an act, contrary to the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short CBDT ), dated 31.07.2017, that prescribes payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The relevant portion of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017 and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow:- Office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 4. 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 a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No. 1914: (A) In a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the assessing officer shall grant stay of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.) or, (b) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why any amount in excess of 20% of the outstanding demand should be recovered from the petitioner-assessee at this stage in accordance with paragraph 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. 13. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed demand for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-2017 within four weeks. 14. With the aforesaid direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
