(Last Updated On: January 23, 2017)

Stay of demand

(Stay of demand as per Income tax Act 1961 )

Stay of demand : Revised guidelines of CBDT

PRESS RELEASE, DATED 3-3-2016

With a view to streamline the process of grant of stay of demand when the case of the taxpayer is pending before Commissioner (Appeals) and to standardize the quantum of lump-sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued fresh guidelines to the field authorities of the Income Tax Department.

2. Under the revised guidelines, where the outstanding demand is disputed before Commissioner (Appeals), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand. In case, any deviation from the standard pre-payment of 15% is proposed by the Assessing Officer, he shall refer the matter to the administrative Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, who after considering all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/ proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand. In a case, where stay of demand is granted by the Assessing Officer on payment of 15% of the disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional administrative Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for a review of the decision of the assessing officer.

3. This decision of the Board is expected to provide significant relief to the taxpayers in matters relating to grant of stay and recovery of demand by reducing arbitrariness in the disposal of stay petitions where the tax demand is contested at the First Appellate stage.

The Office Memorandum dated 29-2-2016 issued in this regard is available on the website of the Department www.incometaxindia.gov.in.

Stay of demand : OFFICE MEMORANDUM

OFFICE MEMORANDUM [ F.NO.404/72/93-ITCC ], DATED 29-2-2016

Instruction No. 1914 dated 21-3-1996 contains guidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure to be followed for recovery of outstanding demand, including procedure for grant of stay of demand.

2. In part ‘C’ of the Instruction, it has been prescribed that a demand will be stayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so and that mere filing of an appeal against the assessment order will not be a sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. It has been further prescribed that while granting stay, the field officers may require the assessee to offer a suitable security (bank guarantee, etc.) and/ or require the assessee to pay a reasonable amount in lump sum or in instalments.

3. It has been reported that the field authorities often insist on payment of a very high proportion of the disputed demand before granting stay of the balance demand. This often results in hardship for the taxpayers seeking stayof demand.

4. In order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A), the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No. 1914:

A) 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, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) here under.

(B) In a situation where,

(a) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.) or,

(b) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee, etc.), the assessing officer shall refer the matter to the administrative Pr. CIT/CIT, who after considering all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand.

(C) In a case where stay of demand is granted by the assessing officer on payment of 15% of the disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional administrative Pr. CIT/CIT for a review of the decision of the assessing officer.

(D) The assessing officer shall dispose of a stay petition within 2 weeks of filing of the petition. If a reference has been made to Pr. CIT/CIT under para 4 (B) above or a review petition has been filed by the assessee under para 4 (C) above, the same shall also be disposed of by the Pr. CIT/CIT within 2 weeks of the assessing officer making such reference or the assessee filing such review, as the case may be.

(E) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. He may, inter alia,-

(i) require an undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled;

(ii) reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period (say 6 months) or if the assessee has not co-operated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations;

(iii) reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section 245.

5. These instructions/guidelines may be immediately brought to the notice of all officers working in your jurisdiction for proper compliance.

Clarification on Instructions on Stay of Demand

LETTER [F. NO. 404/10/2009-ITCC], DATED 1-12-2009

Many queries have been received regarding the applicability of Instruction number 95, dated 21-8-1969 vis–a–visInstruction number 1914, dated 2-12-1993. Many assessees are taking the plea that Instruction No. 1914 does notsupercede Instruction No. 95, dated 21-8-1969.

2. Instruction No. 95, dated 22-8-1969 was an assurance given by the then Deputy Prime Minister during the 8th Meeting of the Informal Consultative Committee held on 13th May, 1969. The observations made by the Deputy Prime Minister were as under:—

“Where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher than the returned income, say twice the latter amount or more, the collection of the tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal provided there were no lapses on the part of the assessees.”

The above observations were circulated to the field officers by the Board as Instruction number 95, dated 21-8-1969.

3. The matter has been considered by the Board and the decision of the Board has been approved by the Finance Minister. It is hereby clarified that subsequent to Instruction No. 95 following Instructions/clarifications on thestay of demand were issued till 15th October, 1980:—

(i) Clarification to Instruction number 95 was issued on 14-9-1970 stating that it relates to disputed demands only.

(ii) Instruction number 635 was issued on 12-11-1973 stating that stay should be granted only in those cases where demands are attributable to substantial points of dispute.

(iii) Clarification to Instruction number 95, dated 13-7-1976 held that the Instruction becomes operative only in cases where there are no lapses on the part of the assessee.

(iv) Instruction number 1067, dated 21-6-1977 held that the ITO can pass the necessary orders under section 220(6) in all cases except cases under section 144A or 144B where the approval of IAC is required.

(v) Instruction number 1158, dated 27th March, 1978 held that in suitable cases the assessee may be allowed to furnish security.

(vi) Instruction number 1282, dated 4th October ,1979 held that requests should be made to CIT(A) and ITAT for early disposal of appeals and constant watch should be kept on progress of appeals.

(vii) Instruction number 1362 was issued on 15-10-1980 in supersession of all the earlier Instructions. It was an Instruction covering the issue in detail and in para 4 of the same there was a clear reference to the proposition laid down in Instruction number 95 which is as follows:—

In exercising this discretion, the Income-tax Officer should take into account factors such as: whether the points in dispute relate to facts; whether they arise from different interpretations of law; whether the additions have been made as a result of detailed investigation; whether the additions are based on materials gathered through enquiry/survey/search and seizure operations; whether the disputed addition to income has been assessed elsewhere by way of protective assessment and the tax thereon has been paid by such person etc. The magnitude of addition to income returned cannot be the sole determinant in this regard. Each disputed addition will need to be considered to arrive at the quantum of tax that may need to be stayed.

It is clear that the substance of the assurance as laid down in Instruction number 95, dated 21-8-1969 was submerged in the Instruction number 1362, dated 15-10-1980 which was issued in supersession of all earlier Instructions on the subject. Instruction No. 1914, dated 2-12-1993 was issued subsequently in supersession of all the earlier Instructions on the subject and the said Instruction also covers unreasonably high pitched assessment order and genuine hardship cases.
It is, therefore, clarified that there is no separate existence of the Instruction number 95, dated 21-8-1969. Instruction number 95 and all subsequent Instructions on the issue ceased to exist from the date Instruction No. 1362 came into operation. In turn Instruction number 1362 and all subsequent Instructions on the issue also ceased to exist the day Instruction number 1914 came into operation, i.e., 2-12-1993.The Instruction number 1914 holds the field currently and a copy of Instruction number 1914 is enclosed for reference

Instruction no. 1914 , dated 2-2-1993 on recovery of outstanding tax demands

COLLECTION AND RECOVERY

1. The Board has felt the need for a comprehensive Instruction on the subject of recovery of tax demand in order to streamline recovery procedures. This Instruction is accordingly being issued in supersession of all earlier Instructions on the subject and reiterates the existing Circulars on the subject.

2. The Board is of the view that, as a matter of principle, every demand should be recovered as soon as it becomes due. Demand may be kept in abeyance for valid reasons only in accordance with the guidelines given below :—

A. RESPONSIBILITY

(i) It shall be the responsibility of the Assessing Officers and the TRO to collect every demand that has been raised, except the following :

(a) Demand which has not fallen due;

(b) Demand which has been stayed by a Court or ITAT or Settlement Commission;

(d) Demand stayed in accordance with paras B & C below.

(ii) Where demand in respect of which a Recovery Certificate has been issued or a statement has been drawn, the primary responsibility for the collection of tax shall rest with the TRO.

(iii) It would be the responsibility of the supervisory authorities to ensure that the Assessing Officers and the TROs take all such measures as are necessary to collect the demand. It must be understood that mere issue of a show-cause notice with no follow up is not to be regarded as adequate effort to recover taxes.

B STAY PETITIONS

(i) Stay petitions filed with the Assessing Officers must be disposed of within two weeks of the filing of petition by the taxpayer. The assessee must be intimated of the decision without delay.

(ii) Where stay petitions are made to the authorities higher than the Assessing Officer (DC/CIT/CC), it is the responsibility of the higher authorities to dispose of the petitions without any delay, and in any event within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. Such a decision should be communicated to the assessee and the Assessing Officer immediately.

(iii) The decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by Assessing Officer/TRO and his immediate superior. A higher superior authority should interfere with the decision of the AO/TRO only in exceptional circumstances e.g. where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably highpitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee. The higher authorities should discourage the assessee from filing review petitions before them as a matter of routine or in a frivolous manner to gain time for withholding payment of taxes.

C .GUIDELINES FOR STAYING DEMAND

(i) A demand will be stayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so. Mere filing an appeal against the assessment order will not be sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. A few illustrative situations where stay could be granted are—

(a) if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee’s favour by an appellate authority or court earlier; or

(b) if the demand in dispute has arisen because the Assessing Officer had adopted an interpretation of law in respect of which there exist conflicting decisions of one or more High Courts (not of the High Court under whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer is working); or

(c) if the High Court having jurisdiction has adopted a contrary interpretation but the Department has not accepted that judgment.

It is clarified that in these situations also, stay may be granted only in respect of the amount attributable to such disputed points. Further, where it is subsequently found that the assessee has not cooperated in the early disposal of appeal or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situation, the stay order may be reviewed and modified. The above illustrations are, of course, not exhaustive.

(ii) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. Thus he may,—

(a) require the assessee to offer suitable security to safeguard the interest of revenue;

(b) require the assessee to pay towards the disputed taxes a reasonable amount in lump sum or in instalments;

(c) require an undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled;

(d) reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period, say upto 6 months, or if theassessee has not cooperated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations;

(e) reserve a right to adjust refunds arising, if any against the demand.

(iii) Payment by instalments may be liberally allowed so as to collect the entire demand within a reasonable period not exceeding 18 months.

(iv) Since the phrase ‘stay of demand’ does not occur in section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer should always use in any order passed under section 220(6) [or under section 220(3) or section 220(7)], the expression that occurs in the section viz, that he agrees to treat the assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount specified, subject to such conditions as he deems fit to impose.

(v) While considering an application under section 220(6), the Assessing Officer should consider all relevant factors having a bearing on the demand raised and communicate his decision in the form of a speaking order.

D. MISCELLANEOUS

(i) Even where recovery of demand has been stayed, the Assessing Officer will continue to review the situation to ensure that the conditions imposed are fulfilled by the assessee failing which the stay order would need to be withdrawn.

(ii) Where the assessee seeks stay of demand from the Tribunal, it should be strongly opposed. If the assessee presses his application, the CIT should direct the departmental representative to request that the appeal be posted within a month so that Tribunal’s order on the appeal can be known within two months.

(iii) Appeal effects will have to be given within 2 weeks from the receipt of the appellate order. Similarly, rectification application should be decided within 2 weeks of the receipt thereof, instances where there is undue delay in giving effect to appellate orders, or in deciding rectification applications, should be dealt with very strictly by theCCITs/CITs.

4. The Board desires that appropriate action is taken in the matter of recovery in accordance with the above procedure. The Assessing Officer or the TRO, as the case may be, and his immediate superior officer shall be held responsible for ensuring compliance with these instructions.

5. The procedure would apply mutatis mutandis to demands created under other direct taxes enactments also.

Stay of demand : CBDT Guidelines