9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 2015- 2016, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to grant stay of collection of outstanding tax demand pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company was amalgamated with Elgi Rubber International Limited in the year 2010. Subsequently, during the year 2011 the said Elgi Rubber International Limited was renamed as Elgi Rubber Company Limited as per fresh certificate of incorporation. Prior to the said amalgamation the petitioner was assessed to Income Tax on the file of the first respondent herein under PAN.No.AAACE9328C. Some of the customers have wrongly credited TDS of Elgi Rubber Company Limited in old PAN ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent which is still pending. While so, the petitioner filed a petition dated 01.2.2023 before the first respondent praying to stay collection of the demand, which was rejected vide order dated 21.02.2023 directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the entire outstanding demand within 7 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee company ie., M/s.Treadsdirect Ltd and one of its group companies named M/s.Elgi Rubber Company Ltd (PAN AAACE4565F) got amalgamated with another company named M/s.Elgi Rubber International Ltd (PAN AABCE9596M) wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to explain its financial transactions, the assessee has neither filed ROI in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor furnished any reply / submission. Hence, the assessee's request for grant of stay of Rs. 4,35,11,330/- till the disposal of the appeal cannot be acceded to. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 8. Admittedly the petitioner filed an appeal against the order in original passed by the first respondent before the third respondent which remained pending and a stay petition dated 01.02.2023 was filed before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of demand. However, the first respondent while entertaining the stay application directed the petitioner to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
