2020 (2) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e nature of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the stay of balance disputed demand. (b) To issue writ of Mandamus or direction or order in the nature of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned orders dated 14.06.2019 and 22.11.2019 issued by Respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to pay 50% of balance disputed demand. (c) To issue writ of Mandamus or direction or order in the nature of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Income Tax (Appeals) on 20.01.2018. It is stated that petitioner has deposited 20% of the disputed tax demand on 31.01.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,16,80,000/-. It is further stated that the deposit was in compliance to office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 6. Notwithstanding the same and despite pendency of the appeal, Assessing Officer insisted on payment of 50% of the disputed tax amount. Petitioner informed the Assessing Officer that he was passing through severe financial condition and it was not possible to pay the said amount. However, petitioner's request was not accepted where-after impugned orders dated 14.06.2019 and 22.11.2019 were issued by respondent No.2 for deposit of 50% of the disp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on priority basis. She also submits that sealing of bank accounts of the petitioner has adversely affected him. 10. On a query of the Court, Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel fairly submits that as per Central Board of Direct Taxes Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 assessee was required to pay 15% of the tax demand to enable stay of the demand during pendency of appeal. By subsequent memorandum the quantum has been revised to 20%. However, he submits that considering the nature of assessment proceeding vis-a-vis the petitioner and the huge amounts of additions made under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act, Assessing Officer had insisted on deposit of an amount more than 20%. 1....