9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed an application seeking for stay of the entire enforceable demand. The petitioner had also deposited 20% of the demand before the Appellate Authority. On the stay application of the appellant, order was passed under Section 220(6) of the Act. In the order it is noticed that based on the material, ACIT was of the view that it is a fit case for recovery of the entire demand raised, since the assessee had failed to prove genuineness of the credits in the Books of Accounts. The assessee could not prove the identity, creditworthiness of the Companies, who contributed to the share capital as well as the genuineness of the transaction. Taking note of the petitioner s argument and taking note the Circular No.1914, the learned Single J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner filed return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring NIL income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and income was determined at ₹ 98,08,840/-. The case of the petitioner was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing noticed under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed objections for reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer reassessed the income and arrived at taxable income of ₹ 4,50,00,000/- and issued notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority for short). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. Perused the appeal papers. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing to furnish security for 35% of the enforceable total demand in addition to deposit of 40% of the total enforceable demand. It is contended that when the matter is pending in appeal before the Appellate Authority, the appellant is required to pay only 20% of the demand and nothing more than that. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has already deposited 20% of the disputed demand. The appellant is not required to pay any more amount as demanded in the order under Section 220(6) of the Act. He further submits that the reopening of the assessment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, order was passed under Section 220(6) of the Act. In the order it is noticed that based on the material, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that it is a fit case for recovery of the entire demand raised, since the assessee had failed to prove genuineness of the credits in the Books of Accounts. It is also observed that the assessee could not prove the identity, creditworthiness of the Companies, who contributed to the share capital as well as the genuineness of the transaction. Taking note of the petitioner s argument and taking note the Circular No.1914, the learned Single Judge modified the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 220(6) of the Act demanding the entire enforceable demand to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
