TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition is extracted below: " 08.01.2019 To: The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward -2(4), Chennai. Sir, Sub: Payment of Tax - Asst.year 2011-12 - time request for Ref: Order U/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 20-12-2018. ----- We are in receipt of the assessment order cited under reference. You have raised a demand of Rs. 62,77,980/- for this assessment year as a result of addition of Rs. 96,78,267/- At the time of scrutiny assessment we have explained that we are maintaining cash system of accounting and income has been recognized accordingly in tune with the system of accounting continuously followed by us, and the matching principle cannot be applied to our case. We have pointed out that we have contested similar issue before the ITAT, Chennai in one of our group cases viz., M/s.Shriram Investments and the "B" Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... I have, in the aforesaid order, concluded that circulars / instructions issued by the CBDT only set out a series of guidelines to the Assessing Officers in the matter of grant of stay, holding in the case of Mrs.Kannammal V. Income Tax Officer (W.P.No.3849 of 2019 dated 13.02.2019) as follows: '7. The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demand are well settled - the existence of . 'Financial stringency' would include within its ambit the question of 'irreparable injury' and 'undue hardship' as well. It is only upon an application of the three factors as aforesaid that the assessing officer can exercise discretion for the grant or rejection, wholly or in part, of a request for stay of disputed demand. 8. In addition, periodic Instructions/Circulars in regard to the manner of adjudication of stay petitions are issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for the guidance of the Departmental authorities. The one oft-quoted by the assessee is Office Memorandum F.No.1/6/69/-ITCC, dated 21.08.1969 that states as follows: '1. One of the points that came up for consideration in the 8th Meeting of the Informal Consulta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessary to collect the demand. It must be understood that mere issue of a show cause notice with no follow-up is not to be regarded as adequate effort to recover taxes. B. Stay Petitions: i. Stay petitions filed with the Assessing Officers must be disposed of within two weeks of the filing of petition by the tax- payer. The assessee must be intimated of the decision without delay. ii. Where stay petitions are made to the authorities higher than the Assessing Officer (DC/CIT/CC), it is the responsibility of the higher authorities to dispose of the petitions without any delay, and in any event within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. Such a decision should be communicated to the assessee and the Assessing Officer immediately. iii. The decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by Assessing Officer/TRO and his immediate superior. A higher superior authority should interfere with the decision of the AO/TRO only in exceptional circumstances; e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee. The higher authorities should discourage the assessee from filing re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nicate his decision in the form of a speaking order. D. Miscellaneous: i. Even where recovery of demand has been stayed, the Assessing Officer will continue to review the situation to ensure that the conditions imposed are fulfilled by the assessee failing which the stay order would need to be withdrawn. ii. Where the assessee seeks stay of demand from the Tribunal, it should be strongly opposed. If the assessee presses his application, the CIT should direct the departmental representative to request that the appeal be posted within a month so that Tribunal's order on the appeal can be known within two months. iii. Appeal effects will have to be given within 2 weeks from the receipt of the appellate order. Similarly, rectification application should be decided within 2 weeks of the receipt t hereof. Instances where there is undue delay in giving effect to appellate orders, or in deciding rectification applications, should be dealt with very strictly by the CCITs/CITs. 3. The Board desires that appropriate action is taken in the matter of recovery in accordance with the above procedure. The Assessing Officer or the TRO, as the case may be, and his immediate superior office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 29.2.2016 Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.3.1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand. Vide O.M. N0.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.2.2016 revised guidelines were issued in partial modification of instruction No 1914, wherein, inter alia, vide para 4(A) it had been laid down that 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) thereunder. Similar references to the standard rate of 15% have also been made in succeeding paragraphs therein. 2. The matter has been reviewed by the Board in the light of feedback received from field authorities. In view of the Board's efforts to contain over pitched assessments through several measures resulting in fairer and more reasonable assessment orders, the standard rate of 15% of the disputed demand is found to be on the lower side. Accordingly. it has been decided that the standard rate prescribed in O.M. dated 29.2.2016 be re....