9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner had to necessarily demonstrate that the Petitioner was suffering genuine hardship in complying with the requirement of depositing 20% of the demand created as a result of the high-pitched assessment. The Petitioner has failed to do so. The question whether the assessment is in fact unreasonably high-pitched, would obviously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of ₹ 5,00,04,435/- by the assessment order dated 24th December, 2018 passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2016-17 as well as the order dated 18th February, 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner Income Tax, Range-2, New Delhi requiring the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand on or before 22nd February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner made out a case of genuine hardship and inability to meet the above condition of making a deposit of 20% of the demand. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely on the judgment of this Court dated 24th February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.6956/2009 (Taneja Developers Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi ) which in turn referred to the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner has failed to do so. The question whether the assessment is in fact unreasonably high-pitched, would obviously have to await the decision in the appeal pending before the CIT (A). 6. Since the Petitioner has failed to make out a case of genuine hardship for stay of the demand, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
