Court upholds Income Tax order for installment payments under Section 220(6) despite CBDT circulars.

The court upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-3, directing a company to pay the entire demand in installments in line with Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on CBDT circulars for waiver of predeposit, emphasizing timely payment. Comparing the case with a previous judgment, the court found no justification to deviate from the decision. The court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the stay application. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the impugned order and clarified the application of Section 220(6) and tax authorities' discretion.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of CBDT circulars for waiver of predeposit.
3. Discretion of the Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-3 in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. Stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved a writ petition filed by a company against the order disposing of applications for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, had developed an industrial area and preferred an appeal against an assessment order for certain years. The Additional Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay the entire demand in installments, which the court found to be in line with the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the Additional Commissioner rightly exercised discretion in passing the order, and no interference was warranted.

2. Applicability of CBDT circulars for waiver of predeposit:
The petitioner relied on CBDT circulars to argue for the waiver of predeposit conditions due to the pending appeal. However, the court did not find merit in this argument and upheld the decision of the Additional Commissioner to require payment in installments. The court emphasized that the appeal should be decided on its merits and declined to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Discretion of the Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-3 in passing the impugned order:
The court compared the present case with a previous judgment where a similar issue was addressed by a Division Bench. In the previous case, the petitioner was directed to deposit a specific amount, and the court found no justification to deviate from that decision. The court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the stay application filed by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of timely payment to avoid coercive measures for recovery of the demand.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the admission and held that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-3 was valid and in accordance with the law. The judgment provided clarity on the application of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act and the discretion of tax authorities in dealing with demands and appeals.

---