Income Tax

CPC can not adjust refund in excess of 20% for disputed outstanding demand

CPC can not adjust refund in excess of 20% for disputed outstanding demand. Order u/s 245 or order u/s 220(6) do not authorise recovery in excess of 20%.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3542 (2021) (08) HC

Important case law relied referred:
Amrit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1975 (3) SCR 82
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. 1979 SCR (3) 1014

In the instant case the assessee had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the CPC Bengaluru for adjusting the entire refund amount against disputed demand of earlier years.

The case of the assessee was that as per the binding directions issued by the CBDT, the Income Tax Department was obliged to grant a stay on recovery of outstanding demand in dispute upon recovery of 20% as an appeal challenging the assessment order was pending adjudication before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).     

The assessee relied upon the Office Memorandum of CBDT dated 29th February 2016 according to which in a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before CIT (A), the  Assessing  Officer  shall  grant  stay  of  demand  till  disposal  of  first  appeal  on  payment  of  15%  of  the  disputed  demand. The said percentage of 20% was later revised to 20% of the disputed demand.

The Revenue submitted that the said office memorandum itself states that pre-deposit of 20% is not a rule of the thumb and the respondent has the discretion to direct a set off of a higher sum under Section 245 of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the Government is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated.

The Court was of the view that the office memorandums, the  Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till  disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. In the event, the Assessing Officer is of the view that  the payment of a lump sum amount higher than 20% is warranted, then the Assessing Officer will have to give reasons to show that the case falls in other para of the office memorandum.

The Hon’ble High Court stated that the order under Section 245 of the Act for adjustments of refunds as well as the order on stay of demand u/s 220(6) of the Act do not give any special/particular reason as to why any amount in excess of 20% of the outstanding demand should be recovered.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the Revenue was entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the said office memorandum as amended.

Accordingly,  the Hon’ble High Court directed the Revenue to  refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed  demand.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026

Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…

2 days ago
  • GST

No arrest under GST- Major decision of 57th Meeting of GST Council held on 8th October 2026

No arrest under GST- Major decision taken in 57th Meeting of the GST Council on 8th October 2026 PRESS RELEASE…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Later SC ruling cannot render an act done in compliance of a court order a statutory default

A subsequent Apex Court ruling on the substantive issue cannot retrospectively make an act done in compliance of a binding…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable to TDS u/s 194A

Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A - ITAT Interest…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Typographical error in turnover accepted during assessment not a mistake apparent from record

Typographical error in turnover declared in ITR was not as a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 when AO…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Plea that assessee was not aware of order cannot be brushed aside in absence of proof of service

Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…

7 days ago