Section 220(7) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 220(7), 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%.
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.