Allowing the petition the Court held that , The AO is not justified in insisting on payment of 20% of the demand based on CBDT’s instruction dated 29.02.2016 during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). This approach may defeat & frustrate the right of the assessee to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal. Such can never be the mandate of law. CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal expeditiously -Pendency of appeal the stay is granted. ( WP No. 2157 and 2160 of 2018, dt. 11.10.2018) (AY. 2015-16)
Bhupendra Murji Shah v. DCIT( 2018) 170 DTR 423/ 305 CTR 88 / 259 Taxman 45( Bom)(HC)www.itatonline.org
S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery –Appeal- The AO is not justified in insisting on payment of 20% of the demand based on CBDT’s instruction dated 29.02.2016 during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A)- This approach may defeat & frustrate the right of the assessee to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal-Such can never be the mandate of law- CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal expeditiously-Pendency of appeal the stay is granted . [ S. 220(6),246 ]