TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners being aggrieved inter alia by the orders dated 20.06.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 and the consequent demand notices dated 5 August 2021, 23 August 2021, 9 May 2022 , 8 June 2022, 2 August 2022 and 29 August 2022 issued by the respondents have filed these petitions. Mr. Pardiwala would submit that essentially the concern of the petitioners in the present proceedings is in regard to the refusal of stay to the demand notices. We note the prayers as made in the petition: (a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the Order dated 20th June, 2021 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and the Notices dated 5th August, 2021, 23rd August, 2021, 9th May, 2022, 8th June, 2022, 2nd August, 2022 and 29th August, 2022 and Orders dated 11th August, 2021, 17th November, 2021, 29th December, 2021 for the recovery of a part of the demand arising from the Order dated 20th June,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question there is an addition of income in the petitioner's hands in the tune of 264.59 crores for Rs. the Assessment Year 2008-09. Consequent to the Assessment Order a tax demand is raised against the petitioner which is for an amount of Rs.239.54 crores. Similar is the position in the companion matters, however, the amounts are different. 5. The petitioner has already assailed the assessment orders by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which are stated to be pending adjudication. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the Assessing Officer by an application dated 30.07.2021 praying for stay of the tax demand inter alia also contending that such demand is not justified on the ground of the assessment order being bad and illegal when considered on its merits. The petitioner also raised an issue on financial stringency contending that it would not make it possible for the petitioner to deposit the tax as demanded. The petitioner contended that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and a prima facie case made out by the petitioner for stay of the tax demand. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 11.08.2021 without assigni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncy claimed by the assessee, the AO in his report submitted that the overseas BVI companies controlled by Late Anil V Salgaocar realised net trading profit of USD $ 690,650,641 which includes profit illegally shifts outside India belonging to Salgaocar Group of companies, which has been utilised for purchase of various overseas assets which include apartments, office units, residences, oil tanker, cruise liner, barges, towing tugs, cranes, aircraft etc. Further it is also revealed from Suit 821 documents that the trading profits earned from the under invoicing of iron order exports by Salgaocar Group of Companies in India have also been utilised to invest in India as well as various foreign entities like Subarnarekha Port India, Ideal Port India, Vertex Newton Mumbai, Salgaocar Asia Pte Ltd, African Pte Ltd, Venus Shining Bulk Carrier, Salgaocar Swaziland, GIP general Trading LLC, Navy Impex LLC etc. In view of the above facts of the case, it can be said that the assessee is not able to prove any financial distress to the company to pay the demand.' On such reasoning the Principal Commissioner concluded that 10% of the tax is required to be remitted by the petitioner within 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer as also the Principal Commissioner in deciding the stay application. Mr. Pardiwala would submit that the Principal Commissioner has in fact not assigned any reason and has merely quoted observations as made by the Assessing Officer in his report, which according to the petitioners, was an issue of an assail on the merits of the petitioners case in the pending appeal. According to Mr. Pardiwala what was necessary to be seen is the financial stringency as categorically pleaded by the petitioner in the stay applications. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue at the outset has objected to the maintainability of the petitions. She would support the impugned orders. Ms. Razaq would contend that this is a clear case where the demands would be justified even when the Court considers the merits of the case. She would submit that the Court, thus ought not to interfere and more particularly when the appeal itself is pending the petitioner ought not to urge such issues and needs to comply with the demand of deposit of the 10% of the total amount of tax payable as assessed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistanc....