9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February, 2019 issued by the Respondents granting stay to the Petitioner only till 31 st December, 2019 is in violation of the directions of the CBDT as well as previous orders of this Court wherein it has been held that the assessing officer must grant stay till the disposal of the first appeal. This Court directs the respondents to verify the facts stated in the writ petition and if it finds them to be true and correct, then refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for the Assessment Year 2016-17 to the petitioner within four weeks. - W.P.(C) 1475/2022 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessment order by way of an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e., CIT(A), and during pendency thereof deposits 20% of the total disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is empowered to grant stay of recovery of the balance outstanding demand. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that upon payment/recovery of the standard rate of 20% of the disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of first appeal of the assessee, unless the case of the assessee falls in the category mentioned in paragraph 4(B) of the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. He states that the Respondents in violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves had set on pain of their action being invalidated. [See: Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab Ors. 1975 (3) SCR 82 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India Ors. 1979 SCR (3) 1014]. 10. This Court is also of the view that the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 read with office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017 stipulate that the Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. In the event, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the payment of a lump sum amount higher than 20% is warranted, then the Assessing Officer will have to give reasons to show that the case falls in para 4(B) of the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 4(B) of the Office Memorandum dated 29 th February, 2016 and/or without passing any order under Section 245 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to refund of adjustments made in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands. 9. This Court is also of the view that the restrictive stay order dated 11 th February, 2019 issued by the Respondents granting stay to the Petitioner only till 31 st December, 2019 is in violation of the directions of the CBDT as well as previous orders of this Court wherein it has been held that the assessing officer must grant stay till the disposal of the first appeal. 10. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to verify the facts stated in the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
