Supreme Court In Pcit v. M/S. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18078 of 2023 (Through hybrid mode) Pramila Patnaik ….Petitioners Mr. J.Sahoo, Senior Advocate -versus- ….Opposite Parties Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rourkela and another Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER04.08.2023 Order No. 01. 1. Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-assessee. He submits, impugned is communication dated 11[th] May, 2023 stating, inter alia, if his client has filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) against the demand, 20% of it need be paid following Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Office Memorandum dated 31[st] July, 2017. Mr.Sahoo submits, his client has preferred appeal but the requirement to deposit 20% of the demand be interfered with. 2.Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. He submits, the Supreme Court has held that the requirement is directory. In the circumstances, petitioner needs to apply for reduction in amount of deposit. 3.Mr. Sahoo relies on order dated 20[th] July, 2018 of the Supreme Court in PCITv. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., passed in Civil Appeal no. 6850 of 2018, whereby there was clarification that it will be open to the authorities, on facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20%, pending appeal. It is clear, therefore, that petitioner has to make some deposit. She is, therefore, required to accordingly apply. 4. With the above the writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (G. Satapathy) Judge Kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOODesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of OrissaDate: 04-Aug-2023 18:35:08