TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the refund payable to the petitioner for the AY 2008-09. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted stay of recovery of the demand for the AY 2015-16, subject to the payment of 20% of the outstanding tax demand. The petitioner has, in fact, paid more than that and yet, further amounts which are refundable to the petitioner for earlier years, have been adjusted. According to the petitioner, the same is contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereafter the CBDT), as well as by the earlier decisions of this court. THE CONTEXT 3. The aforesaid controversy arises in the following context. The petitioner is a company incorporated in India and is en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- by 28.02.2019 for grant of stay. The petitioner states that it had already deposited an amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-. 9. It is also material to note that the petitioner had also filed an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of certain errors in the assessment order, which were apparent from the record. Pursuant to the rectification carried out, the outstanding demand was reduced to Rs. 38,70,73,134/-. 10. Admittedly, the condition to deposit part of the demand for securing the stay of balance demand is in conformity with the instructions dated 21.03.1996 as modified by the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016, issued by the CBDT. Thereafter, certain refunds were granted to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT(A), the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No. 1914: *** *** *** (E) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. He may, inter alia- *** *** *** (iii) reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section 245." 14. It is not disputed that in terms of the instructions issued by the CBDT, in the given cases, the stay is required to be granted to the Assessee in respect of the disputed demands on the condition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....February, 2016 read with office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017 stipulate that the Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal 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. 12. 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 dema....