2018 (4) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed by the petitioner as well as the notice dated 23.03.2018 issued by the first respondent under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short], to the petitioner's bank directing it to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,46,575/- from the petitioner's account and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has engaged in the provision of the Managing Consultancy Services. During the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, scrutiny assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act. The first respondent passed an order dated 30.12.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act, re-computing the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 33,30,78,840/-, an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent to stay the recovery of balance demand until disposal of the appeal. The second respondent has passed an order on 14.02.2018 confirming the 50% of the demand made by the respondent No.1. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.03.2018 with the respondent No.3, praying for stay of the recovery of the balance demand until disposal of the appeal by the said Authority, which is pending disposal. While so, the first respondent issued a communication dated 20.03.2018 to proceed with the recovery notwithstanding the pendency of the said application before the respondent No.3. The petitioner challenged the said communication dated 20.03.2018 by way of Writ Petition No.13144/2018 before this Court. This Court considering the pendency ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held that the two important factors mentioned in Circular No.1914 are whether the assessment order suffers from being "unreasonably high-pitched" or whether "any genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee" in case the assessee were required to deposit 20% of the disputed demand amount or not, has not been examined. Without assigning any reasons, the Income Tax Officer cannot direct the assessee to deposit 20% of the demand amount which is ab-initio, void and illegal. However, in the present case, the petitioner has deposited 20% of the demand amount. If that being so, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have examined the matter in detail in as much as whether the assessment is unreasonably high-pitched or whether any genuine hardship ....