2021 (12) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed tax demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 against the refunds due for the Assessments Years 2018-19 and 2020-2021 along with statutory interest. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to hear and dispose of the appeal filed against the order dated 07th December, 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] that is currently pending. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that under Section 220(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been conferred with the power to grant stay on recovery of outstanding tax demand subject to fulfillment of appropriate conditions. He states that in order to provide guidance and lay down principles regarding st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had preferred W.P(C) No.1449/2020 before this Court wherein the Petitioner had challenged the assessment proceedings, attachment of bank account and recovery of Rs. 2,13,06,741/-, which was 21.21% of the disputed demand. He states that this Court vide order dated 07th February, 2020 had allowed the Petitioner to file a stay application before the CIT(A) and directions were given to the CIT(A) to decide the stay application by passing a speaking order within two weeks. However, he states that despite directions of this Court and several requests of the Petitioner, the stay application dated 18th February, 2020 of the Petitioner has not been decided till date. 6. Issue notice. M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. In the event, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the payment of a lump sum amount higher than 20% is warranted, then the Assessing Officer will have to give reasons to show that the case falls in para 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. 11. This Court finds that the order under Section 245 of the Act for adjustments of refunds as well as the order on stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act do not give any special/particular reason as to why any amount in excess of 20% of the outstanding demand should be recovered from the petitioner-assessee at this stage in accordance with paragraph 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. Consequently, this ....