IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 31. W.P.(C) 3630/2017 & CM No. 15965/2017 (for stay) FIIT JEE LIMITED Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra, Mr. S.S. Tomar and Mr. Anil Bajaj, Advocates. versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER 28.04.2017 1. Notice. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Respondents accepts notice. 2. short question involved in this petition is whether Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in declining Petitioner s prayer that percentage of pre-deposit for stay of demand created as result of assessment order dated 23rd December 2016 should be fixed at less than 15% in light of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29th February 2016. 3. case of Petitioner is that AO erred in not accepting Petitioner s adoption of revenue recognition method for splitting tuition fees collected by it from students coming to its coaching institute W.P. (C) No. 3630 of 2017 Page 1 of 3 as 60% in first year and 40% in second. It is submitted that although this change occurred from AY 2012-13 (and year with which we are concerned is AY 2014-15), revenue recognition method was accepted by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Petitioner s own case for earlier AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. 4. Having heard learned counsel for parties, Court is of view that AO should have, in impugned order, discussed para 4(B)(b) of aforementioned OM which provides that wherein AO is of view that nature of addition resulting in disputed demand is such that payment of lump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted that is in case where addition on same issue has been deleted by appellate authorities in earlier years, AO should refer matter to administrative Pr.CIT/CIT, who shall then decide quantum/proportion of demand to be paid. 5. Instead of remanding matter to AO for above exercise, Court is of view that interests of justice will be met by requiring Petitioner to deposit around 10% of demand of Rs.17,57,53,977 as lump sum amount. It is accordingly directed subject to Petitioner depositing with Income Tax Department sum of Rs.1.75 crores not later than four weeks from today, demand of Rs.17,57,53,977 by assessment order for AY 2014-15 against Petitioner shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal against said order. orders dated 8th February, 2017 and 27th February 2017 of AO stand modified accordingly. W.P. (C) No. 3630 of 2017 Page 2 of 3 6. It is made clear that if Petitioner fails to comply with above condition then this order will no longer continue and in that event abovementioned two orders of AO will revive. 7. petition and application are disposed of in above terms. Dasti. S. MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 28, 2017 dn W.P. (C) No. 3630 of 2017 Page 3 of 3 Fiit Jee Limited v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr