Dismissing the petition the Court held that mere failure of the authorities to recover any amount could not be considered as financial stringency of the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that even a direction to pay the 1 per cent. of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer would cause undue hardship and irreparable loss to it and that the authorities had not been able to recover any part of the demand raised because of its financial stringency could not be accepted. The assessee had failed to comply either with order dated March 1, 2020 or the order dated February 3, 2021. The submission of the assessee that the Principal Commissioner ought to have granted absolute stay lacked bona fides since the Principal Commissioner had considered the request of the assessee and had granted time to make conditional payment in instalments commencing from February 10, 2021, beyond the period indicated by the assessee. The assessee had committed default in payment of the revised first instalment due on February 10, 2021. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner was in exercise of discretionary powers and there was no valid ground to interfere with his order. (AY. 2014-15)