Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (12) TMI 550 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - Recovery of outstanding demand - pre-condition for stay of demand - outstanding demand as determined by the assessment order was disputed before the CIT(A) by taking recourse to appeal - HELD THAT - AO ought to have granted a stay in the matter as the outstanding demand as determined by the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 was disputed before the CIT(A) by taking recourse to appeal Instruction No. 1914 dated 21-3-1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding 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 dated 27.01.2020. The respondents/revenue already hold refunds due to the petitioner/assessee that exceed 20% of the disputed amount. Therefore in our opinion the AO is obligated to stay the demand created by the assessment order dated 30.12.2019. Thus the AO is directed to stay the demand captured in the order dated 30.12.2019 while retaining 20% of the disputed demand. A necessary consequence of such direction would be that the petitioner/assessee would be entitled to a refund of the remaining amount.
|