2015 (2) TMI 993 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of stay application - non recording of reasons - Held that - As relying on Hitech Outsourcing Services Versus Income Tax Officer 2015 (2) TMI 209 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT suffice it to observe that when the stay application is to be considered and decided, it would be required for the concerned authority to record the reasons and then to reach to the ultimate conclusion as to whether the stay should be granted or not and if yes on what condition. In absence of any reasons, the order cannot be sustained. The order can be said to be nonspeaking order since no reasons are mentioned. If the facts of the present case are considered in light of the above referred view taken by this Court, the decision for rejection of the stay application at Annexure-S (Page 372) cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside with the further direction that the stay application shall stand restored to the file of the competent appellate authority and the stay application shall be considered on merits and appropriate decision shall be taken after recording reasons. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of stay application without reasons.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the stay application without reasons. The High Court referred to a previous decision where a similar issue arose. The Court emphasized the necessity for the authority to record reasons before deciding on a stay application. The Court found the impugned order to be a non-speaking order as it lacked reasons for the decision. The Court highlighted the importance of considering merits, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting a stay. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the competent authority to reconsider the stay application, ensuring reasons are recorded. The Court also allowed the petitioner to request an early hearing of the appeal. The ad interim relief preventing coercive action was to remain in effect until a fresh order was passed.

The Court further analyzed the facts of the present case in light of the previous decision. It concluded that the decision to reject the stay application was not legally sustainable without recorded reasons. Therefore, the Court quashed the decision and directed the competent appellate authority to reconsider the stay application within 60 days, ensuring reasons are recorded. The ad interim relief granted earlier was maintained until further orders from the appellate authority.

In the final decision, the Court allowed the petition to the extent mentioned, without imposing any costs. Direct service was permitted in this matter. The judgment focused on the importance of providing reasons for decisions on stay applications and ensuring a fair and reasoned consideration of such applications by the competent authority.