TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be sub-served in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total enforceable demand in addition to 20% deposited and furnishing suitable security for another 35% of the total demand. Order - The impugned order at Annexure-A is modified. The petitioner shall deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand. Deductions shall be given to the amount already deposited. Sufficient security shall be furnished for 35% of the enforceable total demand within a period of four weeks from today. - Writ Petition No. 13714/2018 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - MRS. S. SUJATHA, J. For The Petitioner : S. Annamalai, Adv., M. Lava, Adv. and A. Shankar, Adv. For The Respondent : K.V. Aravind, Adv ORDER Petitioner has chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has paid 20% of the disputed demand. Accordingly, respondent No.1 ought to have stayed the balance demand. Learned counsel would submit that clause 4(A) of the Circular instructions dt. 29.2.2016 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the impugned order being contrary to the same, deserves to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondents justifying the impugned order submitted that clause 4(A) of Circular dated 29.2.2016 though contemplates that in a case where the outstanding demand is disputed before the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of the First Appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B). Para (B) deals with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner has paid the said 20% of the demand and sought for further stay of the entire demand. On the said application filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 referred the matter to the CIT seeking his approval for collection of the entire demand which proposal was approved by the Pr. CIT. Based on the same the impugned demand is passed. The main reason to reject the request of the petitioner is, fabrication of capital and share premium contributed from other companies. It is the case of the department that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the said companies who contributed to the share capital. It is based on the vague statement and the statement on oath recorded of certain persons relating to those companies, additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total enforceable demand in addition to 20% deposited and furnishing suitable security for another 35% of the total demand. Hence the following: ORDER Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A is modified. The petitioner shall deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand. Deductions shall be given to the amount already deposited. Sufficient security shall be furnished for 35% of the enforceable total demand within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to the payment of the amount as aforesaid, notices issued under Section 226(3) shall be revoked. Any observations made in this writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
