Court restrains coercive action on disputed tax demand, dismisses petition for non-compliance, imposes costs

The court analyzed the deposit required for disputed tax demand under Section 220(6) and an Office Memorandum. It restrained coercive action by the respondent, subject to the petitioner not seeking adjournments. The petitioner's actions seeking adjournments were found in violation of court orders despite justifications, leading to emphasis on compliance. The court dismissed the petition due to gross suppression and misstatement of tax liabilities, imposing costs on the petitioner for lack of transparency. The outcome focused on legal provisions, compliance, and transparency, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and Section 220(6) regarding the deposit required for disputed tax demand.
2. Compliance with court orders by the petitioner regarding adjournments in the appeal before CIT (A).
3. Allegations of gross suppression and misstatement by the petitioner regarding tax liabilities.

Analysis:
1. The court analyzed the interplay of Section 220(6) and the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 to determine the deposit required for disputed tax demand. The petitioner argued for 20% of the tax on the amount in dispute, while the respondent sought 20% of the demand raised. The court restrained coercive action by the respondent, subject to the petitioner not seeking adjournments during appeal proceedings before CIT (A).

2. The respondent alleged that the petitioner sought adjournments before CIT (A) despite court directions against it. The court noted the petitioner's justification for adjournments related to a pending appeal for another assessment year. However, the court found the petitioner's actions in violation of court orders and emphasized the need for compliance without seeking modifications.

3. The court addressed the serious issue of gross suppression and misstatement by the petitioner regarding tax liabilities. The petitioner projected a lower outstanding liability by not disclosing the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) liability, misleading the court. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of transparency and clean hands, imposing costs on the petitioner for misleading the court and not disclosing the actual tax liabilities accurately.

This detailed analysis highlights the court's examination of legal provisions, compliance with court orders, and the petitioner's transparency in disclosing tax liabilities, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs.

---