TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-reg. Ref:1.Assessment order u/s.144 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 07.11.2019 2. Petition for stay of taxes dated 07.01.2020. Please refer to the above. In connection with entire tax demand of Rs. 96,46,082/- with respect to the assessment order cited in above reference in your own case for the A.Y.2017-18, it is understood from your petition for stay of taxes that you have preferred for appeal. But is is seen from IT record that you have not remitted mandatory of Rs. 19,29,210/- (being 20% of total tax demand Rs. 96,46,082/-) s far. In view of the above, it is requested to pay Rs. 19,29,210/- immediately and submit a copy of challan on or before 10.02.2020 without fail. In case of failure in remitting the entire demand on or before the given date, the necessary IT recovery proceedings along with interest u/s.220(2) and penalty u/s.221 will be initiated. Also prosecution may be initiated against you as per the relevant provision of IT Act. 3. I am of the view, that the orders of this nature do not comply with the requirements that have been set out for disposal of stay applications. I have had occasion to deal with a similar issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly being issued in supersession of all earlier instructions on the subject and reiterates the existing Circulars on the subject. 2. The Board is of the view that, as a matter of principle, every demand should be recovered as soon as it becomes due. Demand may be kept in abeyance for valid reasons only in accordance with the guidelines given below : A. Responsibility: i. It shall be the responsibility of the Assessing Officer and the TRO to collect every demand that has been raised, except the following: (a) Demand which has not fallen due;(b) Demand which has been stayed by a Court or ITAT or Settlement Commission;(c) Demand for which a proper proposal for write-off has been submitted;(d) Demand stayed in accordance with paras B & C below. ii. Where demand in respect of which a recovery certificate has been issued or a statement has been drawn, the primary responsibility for the collection of tax shall rest with the TRO. iii. It would be the responsibility of the supervisory authorities to ensure that the Assessing Officers and the TROs take all such measures as are necessary to collect the demand. It must be understood that mer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee that he will co-operate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled. d. reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of a reasonable period, say up to 6 months, or if the assessee has not co- operated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations; e. reserve a right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand. iii. Payment by instalments may be liberally allowed so as to collect the entire demand within a reasonable period not exceeding 18 months. iv. Since the phrase "stay of demand" does not occur in section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer should always use in any order passed under section 220(6) [or under section 220(3) or section 220(7)], the expression that occurs in the section viz., that he agrees to treat the assessee as not being default in respect of the amount specified, subject to such conditions as he deems fit to impose. v. While considering an application under section 220(6), the Assessing Officer should consider all relevant factors having a bearing on the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court /or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.) or, (b) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee, etc.), the assessing officer shall refer the matter to the administrative Pr. CIT/ CIT, who after considering all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/ proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand.' 11. Instruction 1914 was further modified by Office Memorandum bearing number F.No.404/72/93 - ITCC dated 31.07 2017 as follows: 'OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC dated 31.07.2017 Subject: Partial modification of Instruction No. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. The Board has, while stating generally that the assessee shall be called upon to remit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretion to the authority to either increase or decrease the quantum demanded based on the three vital factors to be taken into consideration. 13. In the present case, the assessing officer has merely rejected the petition by way of a non-speaking order reading as follows: 'Kindly refer to the above. This is to inform you that mere filing of appeal against the said order is not a ground for stay of the demand. Hence your request for stay of demand is rejected and you are requested to pay the demand immediately. Notice u/s.221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is enclosed herewith.' 14. The disposal of the request for stay by the petitioner leaves much to be desired. I am of the categoric view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for the grant of stay as well as the Circulars issued by the CBDT and passed a speaking order. Of course the petition seeking stay filed by the petitioner is itself cryptic. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in the cas....