The Assessing Officer mechanically rejected the assessee’s application for stay of demand under section 220(6) during the pendency of its first appeal, insisting on a mandatory 20% pre-deposit by relying strictly on CBDT Office Memorandums. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the administrative circulars/OMs issued by the CBDT do not operate as an inflexible fetter on the quasi-judicial discretion of the Assessing Officer. The authorities are bound to evaluate stay applications objectively, balancing the interests of the Revenue against the assessee’s rights by considering parameters such as a strong prima facie case, financial hardship, balance of convenience, and likelihood of success. Insisting on a standard deposit without looking into the individual merits constitutes a failure of judicial discretion. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review. (AY. 2023-24)