Flipkart India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT; [2017] 79 taxmann.com 159 (Karn):
For the A. Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessee had filed appeals before the CIT(A) against the assessment orders. The assessee also filed applications for stay of the disputed demand during the pendency of appeals. Relying on the CBDT Circular dated 29/02/2016, the assessee was directed to pay 15% of the disputed demand for grant of stay of the balance.
The assessee filed writ petitions challenging the said orders. The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:
“i) Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an assessee. Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed income tax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock. It is precisely to balance the conflicting interests that certain guidelines have been prescribed by Circular No.1914, and Circular dated 29.2.2016. The Circular dated 29.2.2016 clearly states that the circular is “in partial modification of Instruction No.1914”. Therefore, the Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede the Circular No.1914 in toto, but merely “partially modifies” the instructions contained in Circular No.1914.
ii) According to Instruction No.4(A) of Circular dated 29.2.2016, it is a general rule, that 15% of the disputed demand should be asked to be deposited. But, according to Instruction No.4(B)(a) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, the demand can be increased to more than 15%; according to Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, the percentage can be lower than 15%, provided the permission of the Prl. CIT is sought by the Assessing Officer. However, in case the Assessing Officer does not seek the permission from the Prl.CIT, and in case the assessee is aggrieved by the demand of 15% to be deposited, the assessee is free to independently approach the Prl. CIT. The assessee would be free to request the Prl. CIT to make the percentage of disputed demand amount to be less than 15%.
iii) It is true that Instruction No.4 (B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, gives two instances where less than 15% can be asked to be deposited. However, it is equally true that the factors, which were directed to be kept in mind both by the Assessing Officer, and by the higher superior authority, contained in Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, still continue to exist. For, as noted above, the said part of Circular No.1914 has been left untouched by the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, while dealing with an application filed by an assessee, both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to see if the assessee’s case would fall under Instruction No.2-B(iii) of Circular No.1914, or not? Both the Assessing Officer, and the Prl. CIT, are required to examine whether the assessment is “unreasonably highpitched”, or whether the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand amount “would lead to a genuine hardship being caused to the assessee” or not?
iv) A bare perusal of the two orders, both dated 23.11.2016, clearly reveal that the Assessing Officer has relied upon Instruction No.4(B)(b) of the Circular dated 29.2.2016, and has concluded that since the petitioner’s case does not fall within the two illustrations given therein, therefore, it is not entitled to seek the relief that less than 15% should be demanded to be deposited by it. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner’s finances do not indicate any hardship in this case. However, the Assessing Officer has not given a single reason for drawing the said conclusion. Since the petitioner has been constantly claiming that it has suffered loss from the very inception of its business, from 2011 to 2016, the least that the Assessing Officer was required to do was to elaborately discuss as to whether “genuine hardship” would be caused to the petitioner in case the petitioner were directed to pay 15% of the disputed demand amount or not? Yet the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. Therefore, this part of the order, naturally, suffers from being a non-speaking order. Hence, the said orders are legally unsustainable.
v) A bare perusal of the order dated 25.1.2017 also reveals that the Prl. CIT has failed to appreciate the co-relation between Circular No.1914, and Circular dated 29.2.2016. The Prl. CIT has failed to notice the fact that the latter Circular has only “partially modified” the former Circular, and has not totally superceded it. The Prl. CIT has also ignored the fact that Instruction No.2-B(iii) contained in Circular No.1914 continues to exist independently of and in spite of the Circular dated 29.2.2016. Therefore, it has failed to consider the issue whether the assessment orders suffers from being “unreasonably highpitched”, or whether “any genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee” in case the assessee were required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount or not? Thus, the Prl. CIT has failed to apply the two important factors mentioned in Circular No.1914.
vi) For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is, hereby, allowed. The twin orders dated 23.11.2016, and the order dated 25.1.2017, are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Prl. CIT to again decide the Review Petitions filed by the petitioner. The Prl. CIT is further directed to decide the Review Petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”
