Court deems 15% deposit order unsustainable, emphasizes hardship consideration. Circulars not fully superseded. Writ petition allowed.

The court found the orders directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand legally unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and failure to consider genuine hardship. It clarified that Circular No.1914 was not entirely superseded by a later Circular, emphasizing the need to assess if orders caused genuine hardship. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the challenged orders and directing expedited resolution of pending appeals for specified assessment years. The case was remanded for reconsideration with a strict timeline for review, and the Revenue was barred from taking coercive action during the process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the orders dated 23.11.2016 and 25.1.2017 directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand.
2. Inter-relationship between Circular No.1914 and the Circular dated 29.2.2016.
3. Whether the assessment orders were "unreasonably highpitched" or caused "genuine hardship" to the petitioner.
4. Request for expedited resolution of pending appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Orders Dated 23.11.2016 and 25.1.2017:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 23.11.2016, whereby the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner also contested the order dated 25.1.2017 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Prl. CIT), which confirmed the earlier orders. The court found that the Assessing Officer's orders were non-speaking, as they concluded that "no case of hardship exists" without providing any reasons. The Prl. CIT also failed to appreciate the inter-relationship between the two Circulars and did not consider whether the assessment orders were "unreasonably highpitched" or caused "genuine hardship" to the petitioner. Consequently, the court deemed these orders legally unsustainable.

2. Inter-relationship Between Circular No.1914 and Circular Dated 29.2.2016:
The petitioner argued that Circular No.1914, which deals with "Collection and Recovery of the Income Tax," was partially modified but not superseded by the Circular dated 29.2.2016. The latter Circular aimed to streamline the process of granting stay and standardize the quantum of lumpsum payment required from the assessee. The court agreed that Circular dated 29.2.2016 partially modified Instruction No.1914 and did not override it completely. Both Circulars must be read together, and the guidelines in Circular No.1914 regarding "unreasonably highpitched" assessments and "genuine hardship" still apply.

3. Assessment Orders Being "Unreasonably Highpitched" or Causing "Genuine Hardship":
The court emphasized that both the Assessing Officer and the Prl. CIT must evaluate whether the assessment orders were "unreasonably highpitched" or caused "genuine hardship" to the assessee, as per Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide reasons for concluding that no hardship existed rendered the orders non-speaking. The Prl. CIT also failed to consider these factors, thereby making the orders legally unsustainable.

4. Request for Expedited Resolution of Pending Appeals:
The petitioner requested the court to direct the resolution of pending appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, arguing that the issues in these appeals were similar to those in the current case. The court acknowledged the importance of timely resolution of appeals, noting that prolonged pendency adversely affects both the assessee and the Revenue. Therefore, the court directed the respondent to decide these pending appeals as expeditiously as possible.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders dated 23.11.2016 and 25.1.2017, and remanded the case back to the Prl. CIT to reconsider the Review Petitions. The Prl. CIT was directed to decide the Review Petitions within two weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Revenue was also instructed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner while the matter was pending before the Prl. CIT.

---