9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashok Kumar Manchanda, Sr. Std. Counsel O R D E R 1. Issue notice. Mr. Ashok Kumar Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that its request for stay of demand [made for Assessment Year 2011-2012, regarding Financial Year 2010-2011], has not been considered on merits at all and that the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) has required the deposit of 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) hereunder. (B) In a situation where, (a) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier years or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the balanced demand." 4. The figure of 15% mentioned has subsequently been increased to 20% by Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC] dated 31.07.2017. 5. It is evident that the concerned authorities and tax officials have to apply their mind to decide an application for stay of demand. This does not, however, mean that any particular AO in a given case has to impose a per se condition that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation dated 04.05.2018 & your submission dated 26.10.2018 has been considered. Your request for keeping the demand in abeyance only till disposal of appeal by Ld.CIT(A), New Delhi cannot be accepted as you have failed to make payment of 20% of the disputed demand in accordance with CBDT 9Mdated 31:07.2017. Therefore, your application for stay of demand of Rs. 1l,79,69,539/- is hereby rejected as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
