2026 (3) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund the amount recovered in excess of 20% of the demand determined for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. Further direction is sought against the respondents not to recover any portion of the demand pertaining to the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, during the pendency of appeals. 2. The facts that are made out are that for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, pursuant to the revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), respondent No. 1 has passed an assessment order dated 03.03.2023 determining demand of Rs. 1,41,68,680/- for assessment year 2017-18 and demand of Rs. 67,69,493/- for the assessment year 2018-19. 3. It is stated th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand is raised. 7. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is pending consideration and has made a request for stay of recovery of demand till disposal of the appeal. 8. It is made out that the 1st respondent had issued a communication calling upon the petitioner to make payment of 20% of the demand payable for assessment year 2019-20 at Annexure-L. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner had made out a request for stay of the demand without insisting on any deposit. It is made out that in the meantime refund for the years 2021-22 and 2024-25 came to be adjusted against the demand. 10. Learned Senior Counsel submits reiterating submission as noticed above that adjustment of refunds....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in para (B)". 12. This Office Memorandum has been amended by Office Memorandum F.No. 404/72/93-ITCC dated 31.07.2017, whereby reference to 15% is modified by substituting the same by '20% of disputed demand'. 13. In the present cases on hand, it is not in dispute that the authority has called upon the petitioner to make deposit of 20% in terms of the communication at Annexures-F, F1, F2 and Annexure-L. If that were to be so, the question of making reference to para-4(B) of the office memorandum referred to above, does not arise as the Assessing Officer has made demand only of 20%. Logical consequence would be that the petitioner was required to pay 20% of the demand to avail of stay which Assessing Officer was required to g....