TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eries. The petitioner has also challenged a common order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income­Tax, Surat, who refused to modify this condition imposed by the Assessing Officer. 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. Petitioner is an individual. During the search and seizure operation carried out in case of third party, various documents, papers, hard­disks and pen­ drives were seized. On the basis of such material, the department built a case of non­disclosure of income by the assessee in course of several land deals in and around the city of Surat. Individual assessments for the concerned assessment years were made. In all three of these assessment years i.e. 2011­12, 2013­14, and 2014­15, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posited for enjoying stay. He submitted that the Commissioner completely failed to exercise the discretion vested in him. The import of the Commissioner's order is that he was powerless to reduce such demand below 15%. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer as well as the Principal Commissioner have exercised their discretionary powers. Facts on record do not justify any further relief. The petitioner was found to be indulging in large cash transactions in buying and selling lands. When confronted with the seized documents and materials, the petitioner refused to cooperate disowning such material. The Appellate Commissioner would examine all aspects in the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category discussed in para (B) hereunder. (B) In a situation where, (a) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting int eh disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted (e.g. in a case where addition on the same issue has been confirmed by appellate authorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of Revenue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.), or (b) the assessing officer is of the view that the nature of addition resulting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be cancelled; (ii) reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period (say 6 months) or if the assessee has not co­operated in the early disposal of appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or court alters the above situations; (iii) reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of the amount required for granting stay and subject to the provisions of section 245. 7. This circular thus lays down 15% of the disputed demand to be deposited for stay, by way of a general condition. The circular does not prohibit or envisage that there can be no deviation from this standard formula. In other words, it is inbuilt in the circular itse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eventually decide such appeals. However, guardedly, we are of the opinion that some of the additions made by the Assessing Officer would be arguable. At the same time, several of the oppositions of the assessee to such additions also, going by the material that the Assessing Officer has taken into consideration, cannot be discarded out of hand. Considering such facts and circumstances, we reduce the requirement of depositing the disputed tax dues to enable the assessee to enjoy stay pending appeals before the Commissioner to 7.5%. This would however be on a further condition that he shall offer immovable security for the remaining 7.5% to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner stands mod....