9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by directing payment of 20% of the demand. Authority can direct payment of even lesser amount. As contended before us that even a direction to pay the 1% of the demand raised by the assessing officer would cause undue hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner, and that the authorities have not been able to recover any part of the demand raised on the petitioner, because of it s financial stringency, the said submission does not appeal to this Court, as mere failure of the authorities to recover any amount cannot be considered as financial stringency of the petitioner. The 1st respondent, having regard to the facts of the case and the material placed on record, granted conditional stay, which the petitioner failed to comply wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is assailing the correctness of the order passed by the 1st respondent in F.No.Pr.CIT-2/Hyd/K/2020-21 dated 03.02.2021, in the application filed seeking stay of demand of tax. 2. The petitioner contends that for the Asst. year 2014-15, it had filed return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) admitting income of ₹ 1,76,654/- and the same was processed on 27.11.2014 under Section 143(1) of the Act; that the assessing authority has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, proposing to revise the income admitted, by making an addition of ₹ 575 crores; no reasons were assigned for reopening; as a result of the addition, a high pitched assessment which is 30409 times higher than the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business got affected; the petitioner approached the 1st respondent once again, vide his request letter dated 28.07.2020, and sought for reconsideration of the order passed earlier granting conditional stay; and that the 1st respondent disposed of the said stay application by the impugned proceeding dated 03.02.2021 without taking note of the submissions made and also the financial position of the petitioner subsequent to Covid 19 pandemic; that the 1st respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by stating that - no blanket stay can be given. The assessee to pay 20% of the total demand in eight instalments at the @ ₹ 10 crores per month starting from February, 2021 and the 1st instalment to be paid by 10.02.2021 and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the authority in order to protect the interests of revenue can grant stay by directing payment of 20% of the demand. 11. It cannot be stated that by the CBDT instruction No. 1914, in all cases a condition precedent to direct payment of 20% of the demand for grant of stay having been prescribed. However, while considering the application for grant of stay, the authority is required to consider three essential parameters namely; (i) existence of prima facie case, (ii) financial stringency, and (iii) balance of convenience. Based on consideration of the above, in the facts of each case, the authority can direct payment of even lesser amount. 12. Though, it is contended before us that even a direction to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, granted time to make conditional payment in installments commencing from 10.02.2021, beyond the period indicated by the petitioner. Even this the petitioner failed to comply with and only as an after thought filed the present Writ Petition on 15.02.2021, after having committed default in payment of the revised 1st installment due on 10.02.2021. 15. Since, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 by taking all the facts into consideration, including the request of the petitioner as noted above by way of reconsideration of its earlier order of March, 2020, and the said order passed by the 1st respondent is in exercise of discretionary powers, this court is of the view that no valid ground has been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
