2019 (4) TMI 1674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner. Mrs. Kalpalata Bharaswadkar Patil and Mr. A. R. Kale, Advocate for Respondents No.1. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 2. The petitioner assails the order rejecting the application for stay, so also the order passed in review on the application for stay. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority has proceede....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner has not been considered. 4. Mrs. Bharaswadkar Patil, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the authority has considered the case put forth by the petitioner and it is not only on the basis of CBDT circular the order has been passed. It has been considered that the petitioner had made a declaration during the survey. It cannot be said that the authority while passing the impugned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of tax demand as precondition for grant of stay on demand. One rider was attached in the order that in view of nature of addition resulting in the disputed demand is such that payment of a lump sum amount lower than 20% is not warranted. 8. The order passed in review reiterates the same. It is further observed in said order that the assessee himself voluntarily disclosed certain amount of incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner has been dealt with while passing impugned order so as to substantiate the discretion exercised by him. If after considering the case put forth by the petitioner, the authority may come to the conclusion about the quantum of the amount the petitioner is required to deposit as a precondition for stay. 11. In light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The aut....