TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 937
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) passed by the respondent No.1 vide dated 26.03.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 and for a direction to the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of disputed taxes. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner filed return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring NIL income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and income was determined at Rs. 98,08,840/-. The case of the petitioner was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing noticed under Section 148 of the Act. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g both sides passed the order holding that the petitioner shall deposit 40% of the total enforceable demand and shall furnish sufficient security for 35% of the enforceable total demand. Aggrieved by the portion of the order by which, the petitioner was directed to furnish security for 35% of the enforceable total demand, the petitioner is in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing to furnish security for 35% of the enforceable total demand in addition to deposit of 40% of the total enforceable demand. It is contended that when the matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther under Section 147 of the Act, the assessment was reopened and demand was raised. Against the reopening and re-assessment the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking for stay of the entire enforceable demand. The petitioner had also deposited 20% of the demand before the Appellate Authority. On the stay application of the appellant, order was passed under Section 220(6) of the Act. In the order it is noticed that based on the material, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that it is a fit case for recovery of the entire demand raised, since the assessee had failed to prove genuineness of the credits in the Books of Accounts. It i....