Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. The case of the petitioner on account of high pitch assessment cannot be accepted since in the present case, the additions have been made based on incriminating documents during the course of search action and investigation carried out by the AO in the assessment proceedings. The petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... miya Das i/by SPCM Legal. For the Respondents: Mr. Suresh Kumar. P.C. (PER JITENDRA JAIN, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under 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 enga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the PCIT vide order dated 16 March 2023. However, the PCIT directed the petitioner to pay of 1.17 crore in six equal installments of Rs. 0.19 crore starting from March 2023 till August 2023. The said order further states that on 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. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icient opportunities and materials on the basis of which the additions were made. The proceedings were initiated on account of search action at the premises of the petitioner. The Assessing Officer has carried out detailed investigation 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 petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue of whether the purchases are genuine or non-genuine is a question of fact to be determined on the facts of each particular case and, therefore, the bald statement of the petitioner s counsel that various decisions of the 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, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates