9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand. Thus when the outstanding amount is disputed before the first appellate authority, i.e., the CIT(A), the AO shall grant a stay on demand till disposal of the first appeal on deposit of a certain percentage of the disputed demand with the respondents/revenue. The change that was brought about by the OM dated 31.07.2017 was that the percentage of the disputed demand required to be deposited for a grant of stay was increased from 15% to 20%. In the instant case, the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 has created an outstanding demand amounting to Rs 36,69,10,379/-. This amount has been disputed before the CIT(A) via appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ Act ] along with applicable interest. 2.1 The prayer for refund is made for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 3. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, to the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by a coordinate Bench comprising Hon ble Justices Vipin Saghi [sic Sanghi] and Sanjeev Narula. 3.1 Mr Sinha says that up until now, the respondents/revenue have not filed a counter-affidavit in the matter. 4. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears for Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, says that he will have Mr Bhatia s [sic Bhatia] seek instructions as to what is the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondents/revenue could not have adjusted the entire demand. 6. This argument is based on the directions contained in the aforesaid OMs. 6.1 Furthermore, Mr Sinha says that several additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have been made as per various judgments. In this regard, Mr Sinha has referred to the following additions made by the AO: (i) Disallowance in respect of ESOP expenses amounting to Rs. 4,50,93,651/-. (ii) Addition of Rs. 49,91,03,019/- made in respect of balance amount shown in sundry creditors account. (iii) Disallowance on employees contribution made qua Provident Fund (PF) amounting to Rs. 30,31,354/-. 7. Insofar as the disallowances vis- -vis ESOP expenses are concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only if there are valid reasons for doing so and that mere filing of an appeal against the assessment order will not be a sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. It has been further prescribed that while granting stay, the field officers may require the assessee to offer a suitable security (bank guarantee, etc.) and/ or require the assessee to pay a reasonable amount in lump sum or in instalments. 3. It has been reported that the field authorities often insist on payment of a very high proportion of the disputed demand before granting stay of the balance demand. This often results in hardship for the taxpayers seeking stay of demand. 4. In order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall decide the quantum/proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand. (C) In a case where stay of demand is granted by the assessing officer on payment of 15% of the disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional administrative Pr. CIT/CIT for a review of the decision of the assessing officer. (D) The assessing officer shall dispose of a stay petition within 2 weeks of filing of the petition. If a reference has been made to Pr. CIT/CIT under para 4 (B) above or a review petition has been filed by the assessee under para 4 (C) above, the same shall also be disposed of by the Pr. CIT/CIT within 2 weeks of the assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is disputed before CIT(A). the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) there under Similar references to the standard rate of 15% have also been made in succeeding paragraphs therein. The matter has been reviewed by the Board in the light of feedback received from field authorities. In view of the Board's efforts to contain over pitched assessments through several measures resulting in fairer and more reasonable assessment orders, the standard rate of 15% of the disputed demand is found to be on the lower side. Accordingly, it has been decided that the standard rate prescribed in O.M. dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
