TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Assessee challenging the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun requiring pre-deposit of 20% of outstanding tax payment of Rs.197,41,95,820/- for the assessment year 2016-17 and order dated 30.8.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar on the stay application of the Assessee-Petitioner filed against the demand dated 28.04.2022. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner-Assessee is a Company being engaged in the business of processing and export of frozen boneless buffalo meat to various countries. The dispute relates to assessment year 2016-17. A return of income tax was filed on 14.10.2016 declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act of 1961 read with Rule 45 of the Rules of 1962 was filed on 25.04.2022. On 28.04.2022, the petitioner filed a stay application before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar. The said application for stay of demand was rejected on the ground that the Assessee Company has not made payment of 20% of the disputed demand as per the CBDT instruction No.1914 of 1996, which was amended vide office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and further partial modification vide office instruction dated 31.07.2017. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application before respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun on 05.09.2022 and the same was rejected on 14.09.2022 on the ground that liquidity pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial position of the petitioner was strong enough to make payment of 20% of the impugned tax demand. According to him, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had not seen the liabilities of the Company, which is quite huge to the tune of Rs.117 crores and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax while deciding the stay application should have also considered the liability portion in its order. Reliance has been placed upon Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules of 1962, which provides that where the payment is made for the purchase of the produce of animal husbandry (including livestock, meat, hides and skins) or dairy or poultry farming, payment exceeding ten thousand rupees may be made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not in default', but only upon the conditions imposed by the Assessing Officer having been complied by the Assessee, it is only then that the Assessee is treated as to be "Assessee not in default". 10. According to him, initially the return declaring an income of Rs.6,53,84,790/- was filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the deductions were disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the Assessee failed to furnish the required information and an assessment was made and tax demand of Rs.197,41,95,820/- was raised against the petitioner. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had considered the balance sheet of the petitioner and after going through the audit report and the balance sheet of the latest assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the condition as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case, treat the Assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in the appeal. 16. The argument of the petitioner's counsel to the extent that the presentation of the appeal within statutory period should be treated as "Assessee as not being in default" cannot be accepted because it is clarified to the extent that discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer who has to impose a condition in each of such cases treating the Assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in the appeal. 17. Thus, it is clear that mere pendency of an appeal will not give any benefit to an Assessee, but only upon the satisfaction having b....