9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the petitioner/assessee, scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short 'the Act') for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was completed on 26.03.2021, which resulted in a demand of Rs. 12,86,72,780/-. 3. As against the said order, the petitioner/assessee already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal is pending. In the meanwhile the petitioner, by invoking Section 220(6) of the Act, filed a petition on 12.04.2021 for grant of stay of the assessment order pending appeal. The said application submitted under Section 220(6) of the Act having been considered, was decided by an order dated 20.12.2021, under which, by quoting the circumstances under which a blanket stay can be given under Section 220(6) of the Act and also by relying upon the instructions issued by the Department in Instruction No.1914 dated 29.02.2016, the assessing authority has passed the said order dated 20.12.2021, stating that the petitioner shall pay at least 20% of the demand, otherwise he may not be entitled for stay. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the assessing authority, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t making reference to the administrative Pr.CIT/CIT. Reference of course has to be made if he is of the view that deposit order of a higher amount than 20% pending appeal is warranted." 7. He also relied upon another decision of this Court dated 13.12.2019 made in W.P.No.3849 of 2019 dated 13.02.2019 in the matter of "Mrs.Kannammal -Vs- Income Tax Officer, Tiruppur", where he relied upon the following portion. " 14. The disposal of the request for stay by the petitioner leaves much to be desired. I am of the categoric view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for the grant of stay as well as the Circulars issued by the CBDT and passed a speaking order. Of course the petition seeking stay filed by the petitioner is itself cryptic. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Mahindra Mills ((2008) 296 ITR 85 (Mad)) in the context of grant of depreciation, the Circular of Central Board of Revenue (No.14 (SL-35_ of 1955 dated April 11, 1955) requires the officers of the department 'to assist' a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs....... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to which initially there was a minimum 50% of the demand to be paid and now it is 20% of the demand. Therefore, that 20% as of now has been directed to be paid for the purpose of getting stay, otherwise it is open to the assessee to make a further request to the Jurisdictional Commissioner before whom also the same plea can be made by the petitioner/assessee as that would be possible for the assessee because of the judgment made in (2018) 18 SCC 447 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- LG Electronics India Private Limited). 11. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, if the petitioner/assessee is not satisfied with the present order to make a payment of 20% of the demand for getting stay of the assessment order pending appeal before the CIT (Appeals), he can very well approach the Commissioner for getting a better relief, if he so advised. Therefore, the present order does not warrant any interference even for remanding the matter back to the authority for re-consideration. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials placed on record. 13. Insofar as the case of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically made clear in Section 220(6) of the Act. Here in the case in hand, even though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the grounds urged by the petitioner/assessee have not been considered in proper perspective in the impugned order, this Court feels that, since it is only an interim arrangement during the pendency of the appeal, where alone the entire issue ie., the root of the matter can be gone into by the appellate authority, therefore, during the interregnum, ie., during the pendency of the appeal, what best interim arrangement can be made alone has been stated under Section 220(6) of the Act. 21. In this context, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above ie., (2018) 18 SCC 447 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- LG Electronics India Private Limited) has been relied upon by the learned Judge in the said order in Queen Agencies case cited supra and the relevant portion at Para 12 has also been quoted, where the learned Judge has stated that definite 20% need not be imposed in each and every case, even a lesser percentage can be imposed while passing an order under Section 220(6) of the Act. 22. If we tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
