9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20% of the demand already raised. It is true that in case where a high pitched assessment is made ordinarily when an appeal is preferred within the stipulated period of limitation, the demand may not to be enforced till disposal of the appeal. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jankalyan Vinimay [2023 (8) TMI 723 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has taken the above view. In the present case, however, taking note of the fact that there is no explanation for the delay, for the petitioner approaching this Court after four and half years from the date of rejection his application for stay of the entirety of the demand and the order attaching his bank account, petitioner is not entitled to the stay of the order of attachment at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,003/-. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner had filed the appeal under Section 251 of the said Act. 4. Simultaneously with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also filed an application praying for stay of the demand issued under Section 156 of the said Act, on 14.01.2019 before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Since, the said application for stay of demand was rejected by an order dated 24.01.2019 by observing that the petitioner shall be entitled to stay subject to payment of 20% of the disputed demand, the petitioner claims to have filed a further stay application before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 29.01.2019, inter alia, praying for stay of the entirety of the disputed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of rejection of the stay application was duly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner had chosen not to challenge the same and has approached this Court in December, 2024. No relief should be afforded to the petitioner till such time the appeal is disposed of. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I may notice that returned income/loss filed by the petitioner, was Rs. 10,69,003/-. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 24.12.2018 had determined revised income of Rs. Rs. 41,22,19,003/-. The petitioner has preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order within the stipulated period of limitation. According to the petitioner, since the aforesaid assessment is a high pit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
