Tax Dispute Stay Order Modified to Require 20% Payment

The court upheld the modified instructions by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, requiring a 20% payment of disputed tax for a stay of demand disputed before CIT (A). In a block assessment case related to real estate transactions, the court considered the nature of the addition resulting in the disputed demand. The court modified the order to allow encashment of fixed deposits, provision of immovable property security worth Rs. 2 Crores, and stayed further demands and penalties. Failure to provide the required security would automatically vacate the stay order, emphasizing early appeal disposal due to the petitioner's individual status and high-pitched assessments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of stay petition under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of modified instructions by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the quantum of lump sum payment required for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A).
3. Consideration of the nature of addition resulting in disputed demand in block assessment cases.
4. Decision on the writ petition concerning recovery of disputed tax amount and provision of immovable property security.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his stay petition under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent cited instructions by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, specifying a 20% payment of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A). The petitioner's case involved a block assessment due to real estate transactions from search and seizure operations, resulting in high-pitched assessments.

2. The court examined the modified instructions issued by the Board, distinguishing between two situations where the assessing officer may require a lump sum payment higher or lower than 20% based on the nature of the addition resulting in the disputed demand. The respondent contended that the petitioner's failure to remit 20% of the disputed tax rendered him ineligible for a stay. However, the court considered the recovery already made and funds available with the Department, modifying the order to protect the Revenue's interests while providing temporary relief to the petitioner pending appeal disposal.

3. The court noted that a substantial amount had been recovered, and fixed deposits were retained by the respondent. The modified order allowed encashment of the fixed deposit, provided immovable property security worth Rs. 2 Crores, and stayed further demands and penalties. The petitioner was directed to arrange for No objection certificates for encashment of fixed deposits held by family members. Failure to provide the required immovable property security would automatically vacate the stay order. The court emphasized early appeal disposal due to the petitioner's individual status and the high-pitched assessments.

Overall, the judgment balanced the interests of the Revenue and the petitioner, ensuring compliance with the modified instructions while providing necessary relief and security measures.

---