1999 (9) TMI 986 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 35A of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 regarding the fee for stay of demand application.
2. Requirement of separate applications for stay of demand in relation to different appeals or assessment years.
3. Determination of the fee to be paid for filing a stay of demand application.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the fee to be paid for filing a stay of demand application. The applicant argued that rule 35A of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 does not specify any fee requirement for such applications. The applicant contended that under section 253(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a single consolidated application could be filed for stay of recovery of demands under the same enactment, entitling the applicant to pay only a sum of Rs. 500. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that a separate application and fee should be filed for each appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 253 and rule 35A, noting that while separate appeals are required for each order appealed against, no such requirement exists for stay applications. Rule 35A(1)(b) mandates separate applications only for stay of recovery of demands under different enactments, allowing a single application for demands under the same enactment. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the fee should be based on the number of applications and not the number of appeals or assessment years involved. Thus, the applicant could file a single application for stay of demand under the same enactment by paying a fee of Rs. 500 only.