| COURT: | Karnataka High Court |
| CORAM: | Raghavendra S. Chauhan J |
| SECTION(S): | 220(6) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | CBDT Circular dated 29.2.2016, Instruction No. 1914 dated 2.2.1993, stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | K. G. Raghavan |
| DATE: | February 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 18, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2014-15 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 220(6) stay of demand: CBDT Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede Instruction No.1914 but modifies it. Both have to be read together. The AO and CIT cannot straightaway demand payment of 15% of the dues but have to grant complete stay if the assessment is “unreasonably high pitched” or the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand leads to "genuine hardship" to the assessee” | |
It is true that Instruction No.4 (B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, gives two instances where less than 15% can be asked to be deposited. However, it is equally true that the factors, which were directed to be kept in mind both by the Assessing Officer, and by the higher superior authority, contained in Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, still continue to exist. For, as noted above, the said part of Circular No.1914 has been left untouched by the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, while dealing with an application filed by an assessee, both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to see if the assessee’s case would fall under Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, or not? Both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to examine whether the assessment is “unreasonably high pitched”, or whether the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand amount “would lead to a genuine hardship being caused to the assessee” or not?
Recent Comments