9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the application of the petitioner for stay of demand as well as order dated 17th February, 2020 passed by respondent No.2, also rejecting the stay application of the petitioner and further seeks a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance recovery of demand till disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. From the materials placed on record, we find that petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter) within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. 4. Petitioner is running a proprietorship concern called "M/s Evergreen Enterprises". For the assessment year 2012- 13, petitioner had earlier filed his return of income on 28th September, 2012 declaring total income of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vent it was stated that the balance of the outstanding dues would be kept in abeyance. 8. Petitioner preferred further application for stay before respondent No.2 on 5th February, 2020, received on 7th February, 2020. By the order dated 17th February, 2020, respondent No.2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for complete stay of demand. However, petitioner was given liberty to pay the demand in installments as per the schedule mentioned in the said order. 9. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. In the affidavit respondents have justified reopening of assessment in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 and has conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in the affidavit of the respondents it is stated that Shri Nilesh Bharani has retracted his statement made. Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable. In such circumstances, we feel that instead of taking a mechanical approach by directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demand or providing installments, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial hardship, if any, of the petitioner. From the impugned order, we do not find that respondents had alluded to the above aspects. That apart, petitioner's appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
