TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his return for the Assessment Year 2024-25 declaring a total income of Rs. 19,34,780/-. The writ petitioner declared exempted income of Rs. 61,61,122/- towards gratuity and pension upon his retirement from military service. The assessment was ultimately completed on 27.12.2025 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, whereby an addition of Rs. 3,90,28,863/- was made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and further addition was made towards alleged difference in short term capital gains and the total assessed income was computed to be Rs. 4,36,73,569/-. The writ petitioner claims to have paid the tax and the interest attributable to the addition towards the alleged difference in short term capital gains and also challenged the substantial disputed addition amounting to Rs. 3.90 crores by filing a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre on 11.05.2026. Apart from the statutory appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for stay of the recovery of the disputed demand before the competent authority i.e. Assessing Officer. Since, according to the writ petitioner, the bank account in the bank ICICI stood attached and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner's application seeking keeping of the recovery proceedings in abeyance for Assessment Year 2024-25 has been rejected. (v)(b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to keep the recovery proceedings in respect of the disputed demand for Assessment Year 2024-25 in abeyance during pendency of the statutory appeal, without treating the petitioner's inability to deposit 20% of the disputed demand, arising from his genuine financial hardship, as an admission of the disputed tax liability (v)(c). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from attaching, freezing, debiting, appropriating or otherwise subjecting the petitioner's HDFC Bank Account No. 50100301662980, Coimbatore-Thudiyalur, into which his monthly pension is credited, to any coercive recovery pursuant to the disputed demand for Assessment Year 2024-25." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue that though the action of the opposite parties in attaching the ICICI bank account as well as other ancillary reliefs are there, but at present at this juncture the applicant is confining his rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2024-25 - Reg Please refer to your application seeking to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance for assessment year 2024-25. 2. Your application has been considered sympathetically in the light of the guidelines for stay of demand issued by CBDT O.M. dated 29.02.2016 further modified vide O.M. dated 31. 07. 2017 but found not acceptable for the following reasons: (i) Merely filling of appeal before the Ld.CIT (Appeal) is not a sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand/keep the recovery proceeding in abeyance. (ii) Further, you have not paid the minimum amount of 20% of the disputed demand outstanding for AY 2024-25 before submitting your application. 3. In view of the above, your application seeking to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance for assessment year 2024-25 doesn't deserve to be accepted. 4. However, keeping in mind the financial crunch, if you find yourself unable to pay the demand in toto, you may also consider filing an application for grant of installments to cover up the outstanding demand in your case to enable this office for considering the matter sympathetically. With the above r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 balanced demand." 4. The figure of 15% mentioned has subsequently been increased to 20% by Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC] dated 31.07.2017. 5. It is evident that the concerned authorities and tax officials have to apply their mind to decide an application for stay of demand. This does not, however, mean that any particular AO in a given case has to impose a per se condition that pending consideration of the application for stay of demand, certain minimum amount has to be deposited. 6. In the present case, the impugned order reads as follows: "To The Principal Officer M/s TurnerGeneral Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National High Way No.8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037. Sir, Sub: Stay Petiti....