9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 income declared has been made on the petitioner; and the petitioner has been issued with a demand notice dt. 27.12.2019 in a sum of Rs. 418.12 crores. 3. It is also contended that aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 @ Rs. 10 crores per month starting from February, 2021 and the 1st instalment to be paid by 10.02.2021 and the balance instalments should be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month, failing which the stay will automatically stand vacated and the Assessing Officer/Tax Recovery Officer shall be at liberty to enforce collection without further notice" 8. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 made out for interference with it. 16. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at admission stage. 17. As, it is contended that the 2nd respondent heard the appeal filed by the petitioner in July, 2020, and no orders are passed as ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
