Assessment of assessee was reopened for relevant assessment years due to survey proceedings.\u00a0 Assessee appealed these orders, and during pendency of appeal, requested a stay of demand.\u00a0 Initially, authority ordered assessee to deposit 20 per cent of demand before considering appeal. Assessee challenged this decision, citing lack of judicial scrutiny. Court held\u00a0 that the demand raised fell within the definition of a high-pitched demand. The Principal Commissioner was completely guided by the administrative circulars issued by the Department and had failed to give any finding about the hardships pointed out by the assessee and had also not taken into consideration the factors such as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss while passing the order. Hence the order was not liable to be sustained as it was a non-speaking and non-reasoned order.\u00a0 Directed to pass reasoned order.\u00a0 \u00a0reconsideration. Referred\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 PCIT v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd(2018)\u00a0 12 ITR-OL 334 (SC) (2018) 18 SCC 447 ; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1214, wherein the Court held that the administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since he is a quasi-judicial authority, and it will be open to the authorities, on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20 per cent, pending appeal. (AY. 2014-15,\u00a0 2016-17, 2020-21)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-High pitched assessment-Direction to pay 20 per cent of the demand-Non speaking order-Directed to pass a speaking order Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand.[S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226, 250, Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-chs","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47210"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47211,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47210\/revisions\/47211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}