9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short "the Act") regarding adjustment of the refund(s) due against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2022-23. In this regard, an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, is pending for adjudication. By way of this petition, a prayer has also been made for quashing the aforesaid intimation. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that after passing of the order under Section 254 of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 and 2020-21, an amount of Rs. 1,16,25,991/- was determined towards refund. The Revenue sent a proposal for necessary approval, which has also been accorded. Further, an outstanding demand to the tune of Rs. 1,54,80,300/- was raised for the Financial Year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided, the Revenue has no jurisdiction to raise such demand. He would further submit that even as per the Office Memorandum dated 29.2.2016 (as amended by OM dated 31.7.2017), the Assessing Officers should have ordinarily, in terms of para 4(A) adjusted not more than 20% of the disputed demand considering the fact that an appeal concerning the disputed demand was pending before the CIT(A). He submits that though the petitioner made a concession for refund of the balance amount after deducting 20% of the outstanding demand, but the same was not accepted by the authorities. He would submit that in the matter of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2012) 347 ITR 43 (Delhi) (judgment passed by the Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the CBDT Circular No.5/2024, wherein, it has been observed that no appeal would lie if the tax effect is below Rs.2 crores. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the said issue has not attained the finality. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Section 245 of the Act deals with the set off and withholding of refunds in certain cases. For the sake of brevity, the said Section is reproduced hereunder : 245. Set off and withholding of refunds in certain cases - (1) Where under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund becomes due or is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstanding amount and disallowance has been accepted for the relevant Assessment Years in an identical issue, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that a good case is made out in favour of the assessee for issuance of a direction to the Appellate Authority that till adjudication of stay application, pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed amount be not insisted upon. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the stay application without insisting upon pre-deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand. The petitioner is also directed to demonstrate before the Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
