2017 (11) TMI 1226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his stay petition vide order dated 25.10.2017 under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent has referred to the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as modified vide Memorandum dated 31.07.2017, has rejected the said petition on the ground that the petitioner has not paid 20% of the disputed tax. The modified instructions given by the Director dated 31.07.2017 has been issued 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 pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), two contingencies have been contemplated by the Board and following direction has been issued: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner having not remitted 20% of the disputed tax is not entitled for grant of stay. It may be relevant to note that Clause (B) contemplates of situation where the Assessing Officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand warrants payment of more than 20%. The other situation contemplated is where the nature of addition resulting in a disputed demand warrants payment of lower than 20%. The case on hand is one of block assessment as a result of search and seizure operations conducted in the business premises and other places of the petitioner. The nature of transaction appears to be real estate transactions and the assessments are high pitched assessments. 4. From the written instructions given by the ....