TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the merits of the matter, as well as to ascertain whether the date of hearing in the matter should be advanced. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the following was noted, concerning the merits of the matter: "1. This is an application moved on behalf of the petitioner/assessee seeking early hearing of the matter. 2. The principal grievance of the petitioner/assessee is that there is a failure on the part of the respondents/revenue to release refund amounting to Rs. 62,14,31,834/- under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] along with applicable interest. 2.1 The prayer for refund is made for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 3. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Himanshu Sinha, learned c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was remitted as it included a component of interest. 4.4 Thus, the amount remitted to the petitioner/assessee was Rs. 34,80,73,401/-. 4.5 Mr Bhatia goes on the say that the said amount was remitted in and about March 03, 2020. This position is not disputed by Mr Himanshu Sinha, counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee. 5. Mr Sinha, however, relies on Office Memorandums (OM) dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in support of his contention that the respondents/revenue could not have adjusted the entire demand. 6. This argument is based on the directions contained in the aforesaid OMs. 6.1 Furthermore, Mr Sinha says that several additions made by the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a plain reading of the aforementioned OM dated 29.02.2016, read with OM dated 31.07.2017, issued by the CBDT. For convenience, the OMs are set forth hereafter: "OFFICE MEMORANDUM [F.NO. 404/72/93-ITCC], DATED 29-2-2016 Instruction No. 1914 dated 21-3-1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand. 2. In part 'C' of the Instruction, it has been prescribed that a demand will be stayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so and that mere filing of an appeal against the assessment order will not be a sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. It has been further prescribed that while granting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. (C) In a case where stay of demand is granted by the assessing officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for proper compliance." [Emphasis is ours] "OFFICE MEMORANDUM [F.NO.404/72/93-ITCC], DATED 31-7-2017 Instruction No. 1914 dated 21-3-1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand. Vide O.M. NO.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29-2-2016. revised guidelines were issued in partial modification of Instruction No 1914, wherein, inter alia, vide para 4(A) it had been laid down that in a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT(A). the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in p....