Mr. Natabar Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15820 of 2023 Kanakalata Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. Natabar Panda, Advocate -versus- The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel (Revenue) CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY Order No. 04. ORDER 03.08.2023 1.Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner- assessee and submits, a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was raised on his client, against which appeal was preferred. The Assessing Officer (AO) granted stay of the demand till disposal of the appeal by passing order dated 14[th] June, 2022 under section 220(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961, subject to payment of 20% of the disputed demand. 2.He submits, hearing in the appeal stands concluded. His client is likely to succeed in the appeal and hence, enforcement of the condition for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- (20% of the demand), per direction by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), be interfered with. He relies on order dated 20[th] July, 2018 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.6850 of 2018 (PCIT v. LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., wherein there was clarification that it will be open to the authorities on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit order of lesser amount, pending disposal of appeal. 3.We had earlier required Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of revenue, to obtain instruction regarding arguments concluded in the first appeal. Today Mr. Satapathy submits, argument/hearing stands concluded. Judgment is awaited. 4.Petitioner-assessee is required to make some deposit for the purpose of obtaining stay. The Supreme Court in LG Electronics (supra) clarified that a lesser amount than 20% can also be directed having regard to the facts and circumstances. The present case has facts and circumstances of the appeal hearing concluded and judgment awaited. Further fact is, the assessee has not yet put in the deposit as directed. Still further fact is, the assessee has not yet been prosecuted in default. These facts may be brought to notice of the Assessing Officer (AO) on application made by the assessee, claiming mitigation and reduction in the amount of deposit. If such application is made within two weeks from date, till then and thereafter till disposal of the application, petitioner-assessee should not be prosecuted in default. 5.The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge Signature Not Verified (G. Satapathy) Digitally SignedSigned by: SISIR KUMAR SETHIDesignation: PERSONAL ASSISTANTReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTSksDate: 03-Aug-2023 18:19:01 Judge