9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 15% of all the disputed demands which form the subject matter of the appeals pending before the CIT (A). This has in fact been reduced to 10% by the impugned order of Respondent No.2. Petitioner then drew attention of the Court to the notices dated 5th March 2019 issued to the trade debtors of the Petitioner under Section 226 (3) of the Act and prayed that those should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal before the CIT (A). The above notices issued are consequential upon the impugned order dated 28th February 2019. With the said order not calling for any interference, these notices also do not call for any interference - writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the application is also dismissed. - W.P.(C) 2813/2019 & CM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned: 4. As far as the question of stay of demand is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) should first decide the application pending under Section 220(6) within ten days. During that time, the notices under Section 226(3) in question shall not be proceeded with and no coercive action shall be taken. 3. It is pursuant to the above order that the impugned order was passed by the Respondent No.2 on 28th February 2019. 4. The main plea of the Petitioner is that the above demand is too harsh particularly considering that the Petitioner is owed refunds by the Department. According to the Petitioner, a total refund in the sum of ₹ 4,55,44,500 together with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial condition and since substantial amounts were due to it by the Respondent by way of refund, the above demand is too harsh. 9. As far as the refunds are concerned, it is a separate subject matter, which the Petitioner has to pursue in accordance with law. What the Court is concerned about here is the question of stay demand in relation to the appeals pending before the CIT (A). The limited scope is whether under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the above order requiring the Petitioner to pay 10% of the demand as a condition for stay of the total demand during the pendency of the appeals before the CIT (A) apart from the admitted liability for AY 2016-17 can be said to be unjustified? 10. Considering the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
