+W.p.(C) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circleinternational Tax 1(2)(2), Delhi And Anr

$~21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 11032/2022 & C.M.No.32314/2022M/S EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTION, INC. ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Deepak Chopra with Mr.RohanKhare, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLEINTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2)(2), DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through:Mr.Sunil Kumar Agarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.TusharGupta and Mr.Uthkarsh Tiwari,Advocates. Date of Decision: 29[th]July, 2022 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 14[th]July, 2022 passed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in SA No. 180/Del/2022 in ITA No.1464/Del/2022, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay an amountof Rs.5 crores against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year2018-19. W.P.(C) No.11032/2022 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the challenge isprimarily on the ground that said order has been passed arbitrarily as thepayment has been directed against additions which stand covered in favourof the Petitioner by a series of decisions rendered by the Tribunal in thePetitioner’s own case in previous seven assessment years. 3.Issue notice.Mr.Sunil Kumar Agarwal, learned Senior StandingCounsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.He states that forgrant of stay, not just the prima facie case but balance of convenience andirreparable loss/injury have also to be made out.In support of hissubmission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in AssistantCollector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. DunlopIndia Ltd. & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 260. 4.In the present case, the fact that the additions stand covered in favourof the Petitioner by a series of decisions rendered by the Tribunal for the lastseven assessment years is not in dispute. 5.This Court finds that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) hasitself issued Instruction No.1914 dated 02[nd]February, 1993 givingguidelines for Stay of Demand. One of the Guidelines for grant of completestay is “if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided inassessee’s favour by an appellate authority or court earlier.....” 6.Further the impugned Order is in the teeth of the decisions of thisCourt which have categorically held that recovery of demand against issueswhich have been decided in favour of Assessee is wholly unwarranted. W.P.(C) No.11032/2022 7.Consequently, keeping in view the Guidelines/Instruction issued bythe CBDT subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in DunlopIndia Ltd.(supra), the condition of deposit of Rs.5 crore imposed by theTribunal vide impugned order dated 14[th]July, 2022 is set aside and thematter is directed to be heard by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition along with pendingapplication stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J JULY 29, 2022KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J W.P.(C) No.11032/2022