Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (7) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that he shall offer immovable security for the remaining 7.5% to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner stands modified accordingly. Both these conditions shall be satisfied latest by 30.04.2018. The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the registry whether he would abide by these conditions and undertake to fulfill them within the time permitted. Such affidavit shall be filed latest by 16.03.2018. It is clarified that either if the petitioner does not file any such affidavit, or in such affidavit declares that he does not wish to be bound by such conditions or having in such affidavit agreed to fulfill the conditions, fails to do so by 30.04.2018, the relief granted under thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder dated 28.06.2016. The total principal tax demand combined between these three assessment years comes to ₹ 30 crores. The petitioner first approached the Assessing Officer and requested for stay of such demand pending appeals that he had filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer, as noted, required the assessee to deposit 15% of the disputed tax demand, upon which, the recovery of the remaining amount would be stayed. Not satisfied with such condition, the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner of Income tax, who by the impugned order, refused to grant any further relief to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the orders of asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of granting stay pending appeals is governed principally by the two circulars issued by CBDT. First circular was issued way back on 02.02.1993 being instruction no.1914. The circular contained guidelines for staying the demand pending appeal. It was stated that the demand would be stayed if there are valid reasons for doing so and mere filing of appeal against the order of assessment would not be sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. The instructions issued under office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 are not in super session of the instruction no.1914 dated 02.02.1993 but are in partial modification thereof. The preamble of these instructions provide that in order to streamline the process of grant of stay of standardization of qu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ddition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee, etc.), the assessing officer shall refer the matter to the administrative Pr. CIT/CIT, who after considering all relevant facts 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 d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... joy stay pending appeal. The circular provides the guidelines to enable the Assessing Officers and Commissioners to exercise such discretionary powers more uniformly. 8. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner. We do not find that even he has understood the contents of the two circulars issued by the CBDT as leaving no option, no discretion to him to deviate this standard formula of 15% of the disputed tax dues to be deposited. He has examined the issues at hand and refused to exercise any further discretion to reduce the demand below 15% of the disputed tax dues. 9. Ordinarily, the Court would be slow in interfering with such discretionary exercise of powers by the Commissioner. However, in the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates