2025 (12) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f several other assessment years pertaining to the assessment year 2018 -19. 2. The facts leading to the institution of this writ petition may briefly be noted. A notice of demand dated April 17, 2021 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner, pursuant to an assessment order dated April 17, 2021 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19, thereby calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,19,33,664/-. 3. The said assessment order dated April 17, 2021 was carried in appeal by the petitioner on August 3, 2021 before the Commissioner (Appeals) (hereafter "CIT (Appeals)") under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. During p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner puts in a sum equivalent to 20% of the disputed demand, recovery of the entire outstanding demand is permissible. 9. It is further submitted that there is no prohibition in law to recover the entire demand if stay of demand is not granted and that stay of demand can be granted only upon deposit of 20% of the demand. In support of his submission he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of Chemester Food Industry (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Processing Centre reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 791 (Delhi). 10. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has in the aforesaid judgment of Danieli India L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the said Office Memorandum February 29, 2016. 13. If in terms of the said office memorandum, the assessing officer is obliged to stay the demand upon payment of 20% of the disputed demand by the assessee (except in the situations mentioned in paragraph 4B thereof), it would be unfair on the part of the income tax authorities to recover any sum in excess of 20% of the disputed demand during pendency of the appeal in the absence of any of the situations mentioned in paragraph 4B of the Office Memorandum. 14. As regards the judgment in the case of Chemester Food Industry (P.) Ltd. (supra), it is noticed that the same was rendered in the peculiar facts of the case where a notice under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been is....