9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24 February 2023 passed by the ACIT [(Central Circle 1(2)], Pune, order dated 16 March 2023 passed by the PCIT (Central), Pune and the order dated 23 March 2023 passed by the PCIT (Central), Pune whereby the petitioner's request for stay of demand for assessment year 2021-22, pending appeal, came to be rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the demand in six installments. 3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing M. S. Billets from melting MS Scrap. The petitioner filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7.52 crore. On account of search and seizure operation, the case of the petitioner was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of installments, the balance demand of Rs. 4.68 crore will be stayed till the appeal of the petitioner is decided. 7. On 20 March 2023, the petitioner once again filed an application for stay of demand and proposal to make payment of only Rs. 0.11 crore only in two equal installments. The said application came to be rejected by the PCIT vide order dated 23 March 2023. 8. The petitioner, is now before this Court challenging the orders passed by the ACIT and PCIT rejecting the complete stay of the demand. 9. Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the issue of bogus purchases involved is covered by various decisions of this Court and, therefore, directing payment of 20% of the demand would cause undue hardship. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation and come to a conclusion that the purchases are nongenuine. Statements of various persons were also recorded for coming to the said conclusion. In our view, based on these findings in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the additions made on account of non-genuine purchases is totally unwarranted at least for the purpose of concluding not dispensing the payment of 20% of the demand. The petitioner has not presented any documents showing its financial incapacity to pay 20% of demand. 13. The petitioner has been merely filing application after application to delay the recovery proceedings. In the order dated 16 March 2023, the PCIT records that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of being heard but has neither atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coordinate Bench cover the issue cannot be accepted since we have not been shown any judgment wherein on these very facts, the additions on account of non-genuine purchases have been allowed as deduction. 15. In our view, the petitioner is only attempting to delay the recovery proceedings of 20% of the demand. In our view, no case is made out for a complete stay of demand. 16. In view of the above, since the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case nor shown its financial incapacity to pay 20% of the demand, we, in our extraordinary jurisdiction, refrain from interfering with the orders challenged in the present petition and dismiss this petition with no order as to costs. 17. We make it clear that observations made in this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
