TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017, the demand raised by the revenue falls within the definition of high-pitch demand. As gone through the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. It is revealed from the impugned order that the respondent No.1 quoted certain portions of the stay application filed on behalf of the petitioner and also the submissions filed on his behalf before it. After quoting certain portions of the stay application and submissions, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order without meeting out the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding undue hardships on account of his financial condition and the downfall in the export industries. As in LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. [ 2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No .1- PCIT, Jaipur, whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of demand pertaining to assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2020-21 has been disposed of in the following manner: The petition is disposed off subject to following stipulation(s):- 1. The Outstanding aggregate demand of Rs. 25,12,77,982/- to be stayed till disposal of 1st appeal only upon payment of 20% of demand as per above schedule. 2. The applicant is directed to make payment as per the above schedule. 3. The assessee shall co-operate in early disposal of the appeal pending before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Revenue retains the right to reconsider/review the payment plans/ stipulations as well as the stay order any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 21.11.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21. 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned assessment orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending consideration. 4. It is to be noticed that against the original return for the assessment year 2014-15 i.e. Rs.8,04,690/-, the Assessment Officer assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.1,22,93,066/-, whereas against the original return for the assessment year 2016- 17 i.e. Rs.10,30,940/-, the Assessment Officer assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.1,64,73,499/-. It is also to be noticed that for the assessment year 2020-21 against the original return of Rs.2,19,09,920/-, the Assessment Officer assessed the income of the petitioner as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the petitioner has argued that the respondent No.1 has simply quoted the contents of the stay applications that too are reproduced selectively without any application of mind and passed the impugned order. 10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the circulars and office memorandum issued by the respondent department from time to time guiding the officers of the revenue to grant stay on demand subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the assessed amount but the authority being quasi-judicial in nature can always order for depositing of a lesser amount than 20% of the demand. 11. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to furnish satisfactory explanation and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessment Officer passed the assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2020-21. 14. It is also contended that against the demand raised, the petitioner has only deposited an amount of Rs.18,914/- till date. It is further mentioned in the reply that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is perfectly in consonance with the circulars and office memorandum issued by the respondent from time to time dated 29.02.2016 and the amended instructions issued on 31.07.2017. 15. Learned counsel Mr K.K.Bissa appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and argued that in the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under: 2. Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the CIT since it is a quasi-judicial authority, we only need to clarify that in all cases like the present, it will be open to the authorities, on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20 per cent, pending appeal. 21. From the above, it is clear that the Hon ble Supreme Court has also ruled that administrative circulars issued by the revenue department from time to time on the subject will not operate as a fetter and the authority being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
