{"id":58071,"date":"2026-01-08T13:01:46","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T07:31:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jayant-umakant-mamidwar-v-uoi-2023-152-taxmann-com-195-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2026-01-08T13:01:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T07:31:46","slug":"jayant-umakant-mamidwar-v-uoi-2023-152-taxmann-com-195-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jayant-umakant-mamidwar-v-uoi-2023-152-taxmann-com-195-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Jayant Umakant Mamidwar v. UOI [2023] 152 taxmann.com 195 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee was subjected to a tax demand of Rs. 4.94 crores. While its appeal was pending, the department granted a stay of demand conditional upon the deposit of 20 per cent of the said demand in monthly instalments of Rs. 4 lakhs. The assessee\u2019s application for an out-of-turn hearing of the appeal, on the ground that the assessment was high-pitched, was rejected by the Local High-Pitched Committee. The High Court dismissed the assessee&#8217;s writ petition, holding that the Committee&#8217;s role is to form a prima facie view, not to adjudicate in depth, and its decision to deny an early hearing, based on the assessee&#8217;s non-compliance with notices, was not irrational. The Court further held that the department, by allowing the 20 per cent deposit to be paid in instalments, had acted in a <em>&#8220;very reasonable and considerate&#8221;<\/em> manner. Thus, the conditional stay order did not violate the principles of natural justice. CBDT Circular dated 29-12-2021; CBDT Instruction No. 1914, dated 21-3-1996; Office Memorandum (F. No. 404\/72\/93-ITCC) dated 31-7-2017; CBDT Instructions F. No. 225\/101\/2021-ITA-11, dated 23-4-2022. (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 220 : Collection and recovery of tax-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-High-pitched assessment-Local High-Pitched Committee-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Conditional stay on pre-deposit of 20 per cent in instalments held reasonable; denial of out-of-turn hearing upheld. [S. 246A, 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-58071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-f6D","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58071","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=58071"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58071\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58072,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58071\/revisions\/58072"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}