2025 (1) TMI 824 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of stay of demand - petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the demand in six installments - whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for a full stay of demand of Rs. 5.86 crore? - HELD THAT - The proceedings were initiated on account of search action at the premises of the petitioner. AO has carried out detailed investigation and come to a conclusion that the purchases are nongenuine. Statements of various persons were also recorded for coming to the said conclusion. In our view, based on these findings in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the additions made on account of non-genuine purchases is totally unwarranted at least for the purpose of concluding not dispensing the payment of 20% of the demand. The petitioner has not presented any documents showing its financial incapacity to pay 20% of demand. The case of the petitioner on account of high pitch assessment cannot be accepted since in the present case, the additions have been made based on incriminating documents during the course of search action and investigation carried out by the AO in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to rebut the same, and it is only after detailed investigation that the additions have been made. This is not a case where the gross profit disclosed by the petitioner is sought to be rejected, but this is a case where the petitioner has failed to prove the purchases and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that only gross profit additions could have been made and, therefore, the rejection of entire stay is unjustified is to be rejected. The issue of whether the purchases are genuine or non-genuine is a question of fact to be determined on the facts of each particular case and, therefore, the bald statement of the petitioner s counsel that various decisions of the Coordinate Bench cover the issue cannot be accepted since we have not been shown any judgment wherein on these very facts, the additions on account of non-genuine purchases have been allowed as deduction. Petitioner is only attempting to delay the recovery proceedings of 20% of the demand. In our view, no case is made out for a complete stay of demand. Since the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case nor shown its financial incapacity to pay 20% of the demand, we, in our extraordinary jurisdiction, refrain from interfering with the orders challenged in the present petition and dismiss this petition with no order as to costs.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment addresses the following core legal questions:

Whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for a full stay of the demand amounting to Rs. 5.86 crore.
Whether the petitioner's financial incapacity justifies a complete stay of the demand.
Whether the additions made in the assessment order, based on alleged bogus purchases, are justified for the purpose of demanding 20% of the disputed amount.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Prima Facie Case for Full Stay of Demand

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders rejecting the stay of demand. The legal framework involves the assessment of whether a prima facie case exists to warrant a complete stay of the demand.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the assessment order, which detailed the reasoning for concluding that the purchases claimed by the petitioner were non-genuine. The court noted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to present evidence to the contrary.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessment order was based on findings from a search action at the petitioner's premises, including recorded statements and incriminating documents. These findings led to the conclusion that the purchases were non-genuine.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed as a deduction, rejecting the petitioner's claim that only gross profit additions should be made.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the issue of bogus purchases was covered by various court decisions, suggesting undue hardship if required to pay 20% of the demand. The court found no specific judgments supporting the petitioner's position on these facts.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case for a full stay of demand, as the additions were based on substantial evidence and investigation.

Issue 2: Financial Incapacity to Pay 20% of Demand

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner needed to demonstrate financial incapacity to justify a stay of the demand. This involves assessing the petitioner's financial condition and ability to pay.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner did not present any documents proving financial incapacity to pay 20% of the demand.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court observed that the petitioner had been filing multiple applications to delay recovery proceedings without substantiating claims of financial hardship.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that mere assertions of financial incapacity, without evidence, are insufficient to warrant a stay of demand.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to make any payments and had not demonstrated financial incapacity. The court agreed with this position.
Conclusions: The court concluded that no evidence of financial incapacity was provided, thus not supporting a stay of the demand.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "In our view, based on these findings in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the additions made on account of non-genuine purchases is totally unwarranted at least for the purpose of concluding not dispensing the payment of 20% of the demand."
Core Principles Established: The court reaffirmed the principle that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed as a deduction and that a prima facie case must be substantiated with evidence.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the petition, determining that no prima facie case for a full stay of demand was made and that no evidence of financial incapacity was shown.

The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial evidence to support claims for a stay of demand and clarifies that procedural delays without substantiation do not justify such relief. The court's decision is focused on ensuring that the legal principles regarding unexplained expenditure and the necessity of evidence in financial incapacity claims are upheld.

← Previous Next →