Court affirms tax assessment, grants stay, modifies payment terms for petitioner.

The court upheld the assessing authority's revised annual income assessment, leading to a higher tax burden for the petitioner. The court acknowledged the discrepancy in income determination and granted interim stay based on the petitioner's financial position. The court modified the conditions for tax liability satisfaction, allowing the petitioner to make further installment payments. The petitioner was directed to pay a second installment within two weeks to maintain the interim stay during the appeal process. The judgment emphasizes adherence to legal principles in tax disputes and compliance with appellate authority orders for interim relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the assessment of annual income leading to a higher tax burden.
2. Applicability of Circular No.334 dated 3.4.1982 for absolute stay.
3. Obsolescence of Circular No.334 and relevance of Circular No.1914 dated 2.12.1993.
4. Granting of interim stay by the appellate authority based on financial position.
5. Modification of conditions imposed on the petitioner for satisfying tax liability.
6. Compliance with the appellate authority's order for depositing the disputed tax amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner initially declared an annual income of Rs.3,42,42,790, but the assessing authority revised it to Rs.7,98,33,274, resulting in a higher tax liability. The petitioner challenged this assessment through appeals and petitions.

2. The petitioner sought absolute stay based on Circular No.334 dated 3.4.1982, citing that collection of tax should be held in abeyance for substantially higher assessed income. The respondent argued that Circular No.334 was obsolete and referred to Circular No.1914 dated 2.12.1993 as the current guideline.

3. The court noted the discrepancy in the quantum of income determined by the department, which was more than double the petitioner's declared amount. The appellate authority granted interim stay without discussing the merits of the case, primarily focusing on the petitioner's financial position.

4. Considering the petitioner's compliance with the appellate authority's order to deposit the tax liability in installments, the court ordered a modification of the conditions imposed, allowing the petitioner to avail the benefit of interim stay by making further deposits as per the order.

5. The petitioner had already satisfied a portion of the disputed tax liability and produced evidence of payment. The court, after hearing both sides, directed the petitioner to make a second installment payment within two weeks to continue availing the interim stay during the appeal process.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper application of legal principles in tax assessment disputes and the significance of complying with appellate authority orders to secure interim relief during the pendency of appeals.

---