Page 21 - Budget_2020

Union Budget 2020

Assessment and Penalty
Modification of E-assessment Scheme

Currently, e-assessment scheme is applicable for scrutiny assessments

• To introduce the said scheme for best judgement assessment u/s 144
• Further, Central Government shall issue directions for functioning of the scheme

AY 21-22 and subsequent AYs

Provision for E-appeal and E-penalty
 To provide for the following: -
• Empowering Central Government to notify an e-appeal scheme for disposal of appeal and e-penalty
scheme for imposing penalty
• Introducing a dynamic system, where appeal can be disposed by one or more Commissioner (Appeals)
and penalty can be imposed by one or more income tax authorities
• Government to issue directions in this regard by 31.03.2022
1st April 2020

Rationalising the Powers of Survey
Sec 133A provides powers to specified income tax authorities to conduct survey

 To amend the said section to provide that: -
• In case of availability of appropriate information – the authorities below the rank of Joint Director
or Joint Commissioner shall conduct survey only with the approval of Joint Director or Joint
Commissioner
• In any other case – the authorities below the rank of Director or Commissioner shall conduct survey
only with the prior approval of Director or Commissioner
1st April 2020

The above proposals have been introduced to avoid possible misuse of survey powers by the tax authorities.

Pre-deposit for Application of Stay at ITAT
ITAT has the powers to grant stay of any proceedings against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). However,
there were no provisions of payment of deposit amount for grant of stay
To provide that the aforementioned stay shall be granted only if 20% or more of the amount of tax, interest,
fee, penalty or any sum is paid or equivalent amount of security is furnished
Further, it is proposed to amend that further stay shall be granted only when, amongst other condition, the

amount of aforesaid deposit is paid
1st April 2020

The proposal seems to be introduced to avoid frivolous instances of stay petitions by assessees. However,
exception could have been provided for genuine cases of delay. Further if the assessee had already made the
deposit at the time of first appeal - would this provision still apply? Clarification awaited in this regard else it
might be a case where the assessee would have already paid 40% (20%+20%) of the total demand at the time
of stay.

19