9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Standing Counsel for Revenue. O R D E R 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 31st March, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer (Headquarters) -I, New Delhi rejecting the request for stay of the demand of Rs. 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') 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 20% of the outstanding demand. This works out to be Rs. 1 crore. 3. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue, nowhere in the application for stay of the demand has the Petitioner 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 Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
