Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I vs Simit P on 16 January, 2013
5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and also perused the
material on record. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed
the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases in all the three
years made by the AO on estimation basis. Since, the additions made in all the
three appeals are on account of bogus purchases and on estimation basis in
the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 541 (Guj), we do not find any merit in the
contention of the assessee that the balance of convenience is in favour of the
assessee and the assessee will suffer financial hardship in case demand is not
stayed. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered view that these are not the fit cases for granting stay on recovery of
demands. However, in view of the nature of additions made in these cases,
these appeals can be heard on priority basis.
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1