TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Stays Tax Payment Demand, Sets Hearing Date</h1> <h3>Shri Manoj Kumar Jain Versus The JCIT, Range-2, Ajmer.</h3> The Tribunal granted a stay on the balance demand payment under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act until 28.02.2019 or the appeal's disposal, noting the ... Stay of Penalty u/s 271D - contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS - Held that:- Given the fact that the assessee has already deposited a sum of ₹ 3,50,000/- out of total tax demand of ₹ 10 lacs which is more than 35% of the total tax demand, the balance demand is stayed till 28.02.2019 or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. The hearing in the matter is already scheduled for 12.02.2019. AR has given an undertaking that he shall not seek any adjournment in the matter and where any adjournment is sought without showing reasonable cause to the satisfaction of the Bench, the stay so granted shall stand vacated. Issues involved: Stay application against penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for contravention of Section 269SS - Balance demand payment and installment schedule.Analysis:1. The assessee filed a stay application against the penalty order passed by the JCIT under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, raising a demand of Rs. 10 lacs for contravention of Section 269SS of the Act.2. The assessee's representative argued that penalty proceedings were initiated based on information seized in another case, where no loan transactions were found in the assessee's accounts. The representative highlighted that the assessee denied taking any loan from a specific individual. Moreover, a partial payment of Rs. 3,50,000 had already been made towards the total demand.3. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay petition, suggesting the assessee pay the remaining demand in installments within a specified timeframe.4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid over 35% of the total tax demand. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the balance demand until 28.02.2019 or the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.5. The next hearing was scheduled for 12.02.2019, with the assessee's representative undertaking not to seek adjournments without reasonable cause, failing which the stay granted would be vacated.6. Ultimately, the stay application was disposed of based on the directions provided, with the order pronounced in open court on 21/01/2019.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
