2022 (1) TMI 1163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed tax demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 against the refunds due for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Petitioner also seeks directions restraining the Respondents from recovering any further tax demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 till the disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is currently pending adjudication under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], the Assessing Officer has been conferred with the power to grant stay on recovery of outstanding tax demand subject to fulfilment of appropriate conditions. He s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urther states that the Respondent No.1 erred in passing a restrictive stay order dated 11th February, 2019 wherein the stay was granted only till 11th December, 2019, which is in clear violation of the binding directions of the CBDT Office Memorandum as it mandates the assessing officer to grant stay till disposal of the first appeal. 6. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that in the present case, the respondents are only adjusting the refund against the outstanding tax demand and not making any recoveries. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. This Court in Skyline E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 29th February, 2016. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. 13. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20%....