TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reby the petition filed by assessee for grant of absolute stay and collection of disputed demand is rejected. The assessee is directed to pay the entire demand immediately, failing which recovery proceedings as per the provisions of the Act shall be initiated. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of HDPE/PP woven sacks/Fabrics, etc. The petitioner has filed his return of income and declared Nil income. The return of the petitioner was processed and for the reasons recorded for reassessment of the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act, determined the income of Rs. 98,08,840/-, on re-opening under Section 147 of the Act, addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- was made and demand was rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a case, where addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation etc, payment of 20% of the disputed demand would not be applicable. Learned counsel would contend that on the basis of the undisclosed income of the assessee, detailed investigation was made, on collecting the credible evidence, determination of tax amount is made. However, the petitioner has not availed opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses before the Appellate Authority to discard the evidence relied upon by the Authorities. In such circumstances, clause 4(B) of the Circular instructions dated 29.2.2016 is applicable. Considering the same, the respondent - Authorities have rejected the request of the petitioner for granting stay as so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facie, the determination made by the Assessing Officer appears to be high-pitched. In the circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the said application judiciously. 7. The coordinate Bench of this Court in FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS IN W. P. NOS. 1339-1342/2017 (T-IT), while considering the very same Circular dated 29.2.2016 observed that the CIT has failed to notice the fact that letter/circular is only partially modified the former Circular No.1914 and failed to consider whether the assessment order suffers from being unreasonable, high-pitched or whether any genuine hardship would be caused to the assessee in case the assessee were required to deposit 15% of the ....