TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from the tax payable under the said head of income. The 2nd respondent, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay the demand confirmed against him under the said head in the assessment order, in six equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 18.07.2017, as a condition for the grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner, in the assessment order. On a perusal of the reasoning in Ext.P10 conditional order, it is of the view that the said order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to make payment of the demand outstanding towards tax on income from other sources, does not call for any interference, save to the extent of the quantum that is demanded as a condition for the grant of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P10 order that, the appellate authority found that, the assessment against the petitioner had been completed by confirming amounts towards tax liability under two different heads. On the one hand, there was an amount that was found payable by the assessee, consequent to a dis-allowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act. On the other hand, there was a separate amount of ₹ 68,25,000/- that was confirmed against the petitioner assessee, consequent to a finding that the amount repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst him under the said head in the assessment order, in six equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 18.07.2017, as a condition for the grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner, in the assessment order. On a perusal of the reasoning in Ext.P10 conditional order, I am of the view that the said order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to make payment of the demand outstanding towards tax on income from other sources, does not call for any interference, save to the extent of the quantum that is demanded as a condition for the grant of stay. Taking note of the plea of financial hardship urged on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that, as against the tax liability of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
