| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | April 9, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| Click here to download the judgement (LG_Electronics_stay_demand.pdf) |
If Prima Facie case is in favour Of the assessee, full demand should be stayed
The AO raised a demand u/s 201 on the ground that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 194-I instead of u/s 194C. The assessee filed a stay application before the CIT (A) who observed that the there was “enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of demand” but directed that 30% of the demand be paid. The assessee file a Writ Petition on the ground that as the CIT (A) had formed a prima facie opinion in favour of the assessee, he ought to have stayed the entire demand and not directed deposit of 30% thereof. HELD by the High Court:
While it is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed, if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. As the CIT (A) had himself expressed opinion in the order that there is enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of the demand, there was no occasion to direct for deposit of 30 percent. The assessee is entitled to stay on furnishing adequate security (Dunlop India 154 ITR 172 (SC) & Pennar Industries followed)
pls. mail all judgements. I liked it