Court Upholds 10% Payment Condition in Tax Appeal Stay Order The court upheld the decision to require the petitioner to pay 10% of the demand as a condition for granting a stay in the appeal regarding the revised ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court Upholds 10% Payment Condition in Tax Appeal Stay Order
The court upheld the decision to require the petitioner to pay 10% of the demand as a condition for granting a stay in the appeal regarding the revised assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the year 2014-15. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that the payment condition was unjustified due to alleged malicious intent behind the scrutiny of their returns. The court extended the payment deadline upon request, ultimately disposing of the writ petition and allowing the extension of time for payment of the demanded amount.
Issues: Assessment revision under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the year 2014-15 challenged in appeal. Application for stay in the appeal granted with a condition of paying 10% of the demand. Challenge to the condition of payment in the writ petition.
Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, had their assessment for the year 2014-15 revised by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner appealed this assessment through Ext.P4, and also filed an application for stay (Ext.P5) which was granted with a condition to pay 10% of the demand as per Ext.P11 order. The petitioner alleged that the scrutiny of their returns was done maliciously due to a past complaint against a department officer, leading to a revised assessment with a substantial demand.
The petitioner contended that the condition of paying 10% of the demand for availing the stay was unjustified, given the alleged malicious intent behind the scrutiny of their returns. The court noted that the petitioner had been granted interim stay with the payment condition, and found no reason to entertain the challenge to Ext.P11 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the petitioner was only asked to pay a small portion of the demand and that the files were selected for scrutiny using computers.
The learned Senior Counsel requested the court to extend the time for payment of the 10% demand as challenged in the writ petition. Since the writ petition challenging Ext.P11 order was not entertained, the court decided to extend the payment deadline until 12.4.2018. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, allowing the extension of time for payment of the demanded amount.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
