An assessment order was passed against assessee and tax demand including interest was raised. Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). However, amount constituting 65 per cent of total demand raised was adjusted against refunds receivable by assessee for various years. Assessee filed application requesting release of refund beyond 20 per cent of demand raised before Assessing Officer which was rejected by Assessing Officer on ground that adjustment of refund against demand was done by CPC system in accordance with total outstanding demand and would have no reference to CBDT Office Memorandum. On writ the court held that since assessee had filed stay application two days prior to filing of appeal against assessment order, order refusing refund was to be set aside and revenue was to be directed to refund amount adjusted beyond 20 per cent of demand raised. Referred Circulars and Notifications : Instruction No. 1914, dated 2-2-1993, Office Memorandum dated 29-2-2016 and Office Memorandum, dated 31-7-2017. (AY. 2012-13)
Neo Structo Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 162/ 224 DTR 72 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)-65 percent of total demand was adjusted-Application for releasing beyond 20 percent of demand raised by the Assessing Officer was rejected-Revenue was to be directed to refund amount adjusted beyond 20 per cent of demand raised.[Art. 226]