9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that both the impugned orders contain no reasons and are in breach of the law laid down by this Court in KEC International Ltd. vs. B. R. Balakrishnan (2001) 119 Taxman 974 (Bombay). 4. He submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circulars / Instructions cannot be read like statutes. He submitted that the authorities, in a given case, have the discretion to grant unconditional stay and it is improper for them to insist on a deposit of 20% of the tax demand in every case. 5. Mr. Jain refers to the application seeking the unconditional stay, including the paragraph in which the financial hardships faced by the Petitioner were pleaded and pointed out. He submits that since the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merits. However, insofar as financial hardships are concerned in both applications, the Petitioner has pleaded the following:- * "Financial Hardship As mentioned above, assessee is engaged in business of trading in imported apparels and other fashion accessories, through the outlets in various malls across the country. The assessee is required to make payments to its foreign suppliers at a regular intervals at an agreed date. Due to the long business cycle and the continuous requirements of working capital, the sudden arise of huge demand is clearly impacting not only the working capital but also the profitability of the assessee in this cut-throat competition. Also your goodself will agree to the fact that in this slow down economy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores, fixed assets of Rs.10.38 crores, and cash and bank balance of Rs. 1.81 crores. 13. The tax demand in this case is Rs.2.38 crores, and 20% of this amount would come to approximately Rs.48 lakhs. Considering, this material placed on record by the Petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter. Upon due consideration of the Petitioner's case, we find that the direction for a deposit of 20% of the tax demand as a pre-condition for stay was appropriate and warrants no interference. In the assessment order, an addition has been made on account of cash deposited in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The reasons given in the assessment order do lend support for at least depositing 20% of demand, and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
