9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reckoned with the disputed demand and precisely for this reason Tribunal has clearly directed the AO twice as mentioned above. Despite such direction, AO has blatantly ignored the directions and instead asked the assessee to firstly pay the entire demand which is outstanding and then second time 20% of the demand of the whole outstanding demand as worked out by him post credit of TDS. Such an action of the ld. AO is not correct and accordingly, balance disputed demand is hereby stayed - firstly, for the reason that there is no fault on the part of the assessee to conduct the appeals and it is the department who is been seeking adjournment time and again as noted above and Secondly, already stay was granted by this Tribunal looking to the prima facie case on earlier occasions which has been misinterpreted by the AO. Accordingly, the stay is granted for the balance demand for a further period of six months or till passing of the order whichever is earlier. - SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Porus Kaka Shri Manish Kanth For the Respondent : Shri Anil Sant ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): In this case the applicant assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure expeditious disposal of this appeal on the scheduled date of hearing. 3. Thus, the Tribunal has categorically directed the AO that such a computation of 20% has to be with respect to total disputed demand, and not with respect to the outstanding demand specified under section 156 and remitted the matter to the AO for verification, whether 20% of the disputed demand has been paid and if so pass an appropriate order granting stay to the assessee. 4. The ld. AO in his order giving effect in clear violation of the direction of the Tribunal stay order directed the assessee to pay the entire outstanding demand of Rs. 1031,46,82,967/-. Thus, AO exceeded his jurisdiction and in his order dated 13/10/2022, he stated that the disputed demand which is Rs. 1031.47 Crores is the net payable demand after allowing credit for prepaid taxes being TDS of Rs. 261.37 Crores and not the gross demand. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the ld. AO, the applicant assessee filed second stay application before the Tribunal on 18/10/2022 and this Tribunal vide order dated 21/10/2022 again directed the ld. AO in the following manner:- 3. From the perusal of the earlier stay order dated 03/10/2022, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the operation of the order of assessment was to be calculated in regard to the total disputed demand and not with respect to the outstanding demand specified under Section 156 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that in terms of the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act, the amount calculated was Rs. 10,31,46,82,950/-. 3. The A.O., however, despite the orders of the Tribunal, passed an order dated 13th October, 2022, wherein instead of following the order of the Tribunal, required the Petitioner to deposit the entire demand of Rs. 10,31,46,82,946/- on the ground that the CBDT Circular was not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Aggrieved of the said order, the Petitioner yet again approached the Tribunal which finally passed an order on 21 October, 2022, whereby the A.O, was directed to comply with the earlier directions of the Tribunal. While passing such an order the Tribunal also stayed the demand raised by the A.O. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, the A.O. yet again has passed an order dated 28th February, 2023, wherein it quantified the outstanding demand at Rs. 10,31,46,82,946/- and calculated Rs. 206,29,36,589/- as the amount payable reflecting 20% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire controversy revolves in the present case, whether 20% of the demand for the purpose of staying the balance demand should be calculated with regard to total disputed demand or in respect to outstanding demand specified u/s.156 of the Act. What is contemplated in Section 156 is the working of the demand in accordance with the Act after adjustments. It says when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form . Such demand notice would be issued after adjustments of various demands / refunds, self-assessment, TDS, etc. Proviso to Section 254A empowers the Tribunal that after considering the merits of application made by the assessee may pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to appeal filed u/s. 253(1) for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of such order subject to condition that assessee deposits not less than 20% of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty or any other sum payable under the provisions of this Act or furnishes security of equal amount in respect thereof. Here in this case appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
