9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 870 - HC - Income TaxStay application - case of petitioner is that the application for stay has been rejected without any application of mind and without going into the contentions raised by the petitioner - Held that - application dated 3rd January, 2017 made by the petitioner is as vague as possible. The impugned communication dated 14th August, 2017 does not contain any reason - Notwithstanding the impugned communication, it will be open for the petitioner to make a fresh application for stay of demand to the Assessing Officer - application rejected.
Issues:
Application for stay of demand rejected without proper consideration Analysis: The petitioner filed an application for stay of demand and recovery proceedings to the Tax Recovery Officer, which was rejected by the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner contended that the rejection was done summarily without proper consideration of the contentions raised. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and suggested that the petitioner could benefit from a policy by depositing 20% of the demand amount. The respondent also highlighted that the application made by the petitioner lacked specific grounds for granting the stay. Upon reviewing the submissions and documents, the court found the petitioner's initial application to be vague and lacking in reasons. The court acknowledged the petitioner's counsel's statement that a fresh application for stay would be made to the Assessing Officer. The court considered this request reasonable and directed the petitioner to make a fresh application within three weeks. Furthermore, the court ordered the Assessing Officer to decide on the fresh application within one month in accordance with the law. The court clarified that the fresh application would be heard on its own merits, keeping all contentions open for further consideration. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh application for stay of demand to the Assessing Officer within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized that the fresh application would be considered independently of the previous order, ensuring a fair review of the petitioner's request.
|
