TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, jumpers and connectors and trading in related products. 3. On 30.11.2012, the petitioner filed a return for the Assessment Year 2012-13, declaring loss of Rs. 10,23,16,807/-. It appears that the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and as per the final assessment order dated 06.05.2016, the petitioner was served with a notice of demand for Rs. 16,90,79,380/-. In short, against a returned loss of Rs. 10,23,16,807/-, the respondents have raised a demand of Rs. 16,90,79,380/-. Undisputedly, the petitioner has challenged the said assessment in an appeal, which is pending before the learned CIT (A). 4. It further appears that the petitioner applied to the respondent no. 2 for stay of the demand, till the appeal filed by the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending refund. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that admittedly, a total refund of Rs. 12,25,45,340/- is due and payable to the petitioner for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is submitted that the impugned demand is ex-facie, illegal and unwarranted and thus, it is a case for grant of an unconditional stay. The learned Senior Counsel, however, in all fairness has submitted that 15% of the demand, which comes to Rs. 2,53,61,907/- can be recovered/adjusted from out of the refund, which is outstanding. It is submitted that the stand taken by the respondents that the entire amount of refund be adjusted against the outstanding demand, is illegal and unjust and is against the O.M. dated 29.02.2016. On behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative side. Be that as it may, the O.M. dated 29.02.2016, to the extent relevant, reads thus: 4. In order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No. 1914: (A) In a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) hereunder: (B) ..... (C) ..... (D) ..... (E) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t para 4(E) contemplates some additional conditions, which may be imposed by the assessing officer, while granting stay, which includes a right to adjust the refund, if any, to the extent of demand required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of Section 245. It was not disputed during the course of the arguments at bar that such a demand can be adjusted against the pending refund for the previous year, if any. The dispute is really about the extent of such adjustment. While it is claimed by the respondents that the entire amount of the refund shall be adjusted as against the impugned demand as a condition for stay, on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that 15% of the impugned demand may be adjusted, out of the total amou....