Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 189 - HC - Income TaxStay u/s 220 (6) - Stay demand in relation to the appeals pending before the CIT (A) - whether u/s 226 (3) order requiring the Petitioner to pay 10% of the demand as a condition for stay of the total demand during the pendency of the appeals before the CIT (A) apart from the admitted liability for AY 2016-17 can be said to be unjustified? - HELD THAT:- The impugned order requiring the Petitioner to pay 10% of the demand cannot be termed to be unreasonable. Revenue, has shown the Court the copy of a demand dated 17th March 2017 raised by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the Petitioner under Section 221 (1) which is 15% of all the disputed demands which form the subject matter of the appeals pending before the CIT (A). This has in fact been reduced to 10% by the impugned order of Respondent No.2. Petitioner then drew attention of the Court to the notices dated 5th March 2019 issued to the trade debtors of the Petitioner under Section 226 (3) of the Act and prayed that those should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal before the CIT (A). The above notices issued are consequential upon the impugned order dated 28th February 2019. With the said order not calling for any interference, these notices also do not call for any interference - writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the application is also dismissed.
|