2025 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24 February 2023 passed by the ACIT [(Central Circle 1(2)], Pune, order dated 16 March 2023 passed by the PCIT (Central), Pune and the order dated 23 March 2023 passed by the PCIT (Central), Pune whereby the petitioner's request for stay of demand for assessment year 2021-22, pending appeal, came to be rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the demand in six installments. 3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing M. S. Billets from melting MS Scrap. The petitioner filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7.52 crore. On account of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....March 2023 till August 2023. The said order further states that on payment of installments, the balance demand of Rs. 4.68 crore will be stayed till the appeal of the petitioner is decided. 7. On 20 March 2023, the petitioner once again filed an application for stay of demand and proposal to make payment of only Rs. 0.11 crore only in two equal installments. The said application came to be rejected by the PCIT vide order dated 23 March 2023. 8. The petitioner, is now before this Court challenging the orders passed by the ACIT and PCIT rejecting the complete stay of the demand. 9. Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the issue of bogus purchases involved is covered by various decisions of this Court and, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e premises of the petitioner. The Assessing Officer has carried out detailed investigation and come to a conclusion that the purchases are nongenuine. Statements of various persons were also recorded for coming to the said conclusion. In our view, based on these findings in the assessment order, it cannot be said that the additions made on account of non-genuine purchases is totally unwarranted at least for the purpose of concluding not dispensing the payment of 20% of the demand. The petitioner has not presented any documents showing its financial incapacity to pay 20% of demand. 13. The petitioner has been merely filing application after application to delay the recovery proceedings. In the order dated 16 March 2023, the PCIT records t....