Anticipatory bail refused where accused allegedly assaulted and threatened a public servant; custodial interrogation deemed necessary for investigatio...
HC dismissed the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
HC dismissed the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
