GIRIDHARI GAANA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX,BBSR

WP(C)/6228/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a dispute between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department regarding a demand raised following an assessment order for the year 2013-14. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and sought a stay on the demand, which was initially rejected by the Assessing Officer and subsequently by the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner challenged these decisions, citing the CBDT's revised guidelines that allow for a stay on demand upon depositing 15% of the disputed amount. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and set aside the lower orders, directing the Assessing Officer to adhere to the revised guidelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749708 (HC-ODISHA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ACHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: G M RATH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; CBDT guidelines; Income Tax Department; Stay of demand
• Section: 220(6); 246 A

Judgement Text

" W.P.(C) No.6228 of 2017 24.04.2017 Heard Mr.G.M.Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Acharya, learned Senior S tanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of assessment for th e year, 2013-14, a demand came to be raised and against the said demand, the statutory appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act has come to be filed. After filing of the appeal, th e petitioner moved the Assessing Officer under Sub-Section (6) of Section 220 of the Income Ta x Act seeking stay of demand pending disposal of the appeal. The said order came to be rejecte d by the assessing officer under order dated 22nd February, 2017 and confirmed by the Joint Co mmissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Bhubaneswar by order dated 20.3.2017. Consequently, the ass essing officer raised demand under Annexure-6 dated 29.3.2017 demanding the petitioner to depo sit the entire demanded dues. Mr. Acharya learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the petitioner ought to have moved before the Principal Commissioner if he was in any manner aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer instead of moving the Joint Commissione r. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the Revised Guidelines issued by th e C.B.D.T. relating to stay of demand at the First Appeal Stage. The relevant portion is quote d hereunder: x x x Under the revised guidelines, where the outstanding demand is disputed before Commissi oner (Appeals), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand. In case, any deviation from the standard pre-payment of 15% is proposed b y the Assessing Officer, he shall refer the matter to the administrative Principal Commissione r or Commissioner, who after considering all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/proportio n of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand. In a case, where stay of demand is granted by the Assessing Officer on payment of 15% of the disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional administrative Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for a review of the decision of the ass essing officer. This decision of the Board is expected to provide significant relief to the taxpayers in matters relating to grant of stay and recovery of demand by reducing arbitrariness in the d isposal of stay petitions where the tax demand is contested at the First Appellate stage. X x x It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 15% of the disputed demand before the income tax authority. Considering the submissions made and considering the over all aspects of the matter, t his Court sets aside the order of the Joint Commissioner as well as of the Assessing Officer i mpugned before us and grant liberty to the petitioner to make an offer before the Assessing Of ficer for making necessary deposit of 15% of the disputed tax amount. When such an application is moved, the Assessing Officer shall do well to be guided by the directive issued by the CBD T (Revised Guidelines) as noted hereinabove and pass necessary orders for enabling the petitio ner to comply with the said deposit. Once such deposit is made, balance demand shall remain in abeyance till disposal of the first appeal by the appellate authority. Consequently, the orde rs under Annexures-4 and 6 stand quashed. The matter stands remitted back to the assessing offic er. With such observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Free copy of this order be handed over to the learned Senior Standing Counsel. .. I. Mahanty, J. ... Biswajit Mohanty, J. List this 2 "