Section 220(3)

Section 220(3) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 220(3), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• M/s. Queen Agencies v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Assessing Officer has rejected my stay application in two lines saying pay 20%. Is that order sustainable, and can he order less than 20% without going to the Principal Commissioner?
  No, a non-speaking order under s.220(6) that simply directs payment of 20% is liable to be set aside; the Assessing Officer must pass a speaking order applying the three parameters - prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. And yes: because the Assessing Officer exercises a quasi-judicial power, he can himself direct a deposit of LESS than 20% without any reference to the Principal Commissioner; a reference upward is needed only if he wants MORE than 20%.
• Sony India Pvt Ltd v Additional CIT (Delhi) High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO rejected my stay application and issued a garnishee notice to my bank the same day. Is that permissible?
  The Delhi High Court held that issuing a notice under s.226(3) on the very day the stay application was rejected, and emptying the bank account two days later, carried an element of impropriety and arbitrariness, even though it could not be said to be illegal. The Court ordered the money reversed to the account and restrained coercive steps until the Tribunal decided the stay application.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.