2026 (1) TMI 196

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 Petition) without granting refund of Rs. 56,81,075/- (adjusted amount of Rs. 80,18,128/- minus 20% of the disputed demand of Rs. 23,37,053/-). It was submitted that the refund of Rs. 37,00,594/-for the Assessment Year 2022-23 and the refund of Rs. 43,17,534/- for the Assessment Year 2023-24 was adjusted against the disputed penalty of Rs. 1,16,85,263/- levied under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Thus, Respondent No.1 has recovered a sum exceeding 20% of the disputed demand. The Petitioner, vide letters dated 11.11.2024, 16.12.2024 and again on 17th February 2025 submitted that the penalty levied for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is the subject matter of an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Thus, as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment was completed for the Assessment Year 2021-22 vide assessment order dated 23rd December 2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act by reducing the loss to 37,48,863/- from Rs. 7,37,54,036/- as declared in the return of income. The assessment order does not result into any demand. Pursuant to the same, the penalty order dated 21st June 2023 was passed under section 270A of the Act by levying a penalty of Rs. 1,16,85,263/- 5. The said penalty order was challenged before the First Appellate Authority in the appeal instituted on 7th November, 2023. In the meantime, Respondent No.1 adjusted the refund of Rs. 37,00,594/- arising in the Assessment Year 2022-23 and the refund of Rs. 43,17,534/-arising in the Assessment Year 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emorandum, however, makes a provision of more than or less than 20% of the demand, in certain circumstances for which the Assessing Officer has to refer the matter to the administrative Pr. CIT/CIT, who after considering all relevant facts, would 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. 8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Assessing Officer has not received any direction from the PCIT to recover more than 20% of the disputed demand as a pre-condition for stay of the demand disputed. It is also not disputed that the Respondents have recovered by way of adjustment of refund, a sum which exceeds 20% of the disputed demand, which is ....