9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as the CIT(A)] on a stay application filed by the petitioners in pending appeals from orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08. The petition also seeks that the notices under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) attaching the petitioner's bank accounts be stayed. 3. The relevant facts are as under: (a) By four orders all dated 29.12.2011, the Assessing Officer passed Assessment Orders under Section 153A read with section 143(3) of the said Act for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 raising a demand aggregating to Rs.6.33 crores. (b) The petitioner preferred Appeals under Section 246A of the said Act to the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall continue for a period of 2 weeks thereafter. (e) Consequently, on 27.04.2012, the petitioners filed before the CIT(A) an application for stay. The petitioner in its application pleaded that it has a strong case on merits and the entire proceeding against it are completely without jurisdiction in as much as no search under Section 132 of the said Act was conducted in its case and, therefore, the assessment orders under Section 153A of the said Act could not have been passed. The petitioner also pleaded that in the absence of stay it would suffer irreparable loss and injury and that its business had come to a stand still in view of the notices under section 226(3) of the said Act issued to its bankers. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner had not even filed its current balance sheet. So far as high pitched assessments i.e. assessments far in excess of returned income is concerned he points out that the impugned order refers to the report of the Assessing officer that the petitioner belongs to a group of companies which are engaged in hawala transactions/operations, which are under investigation. He further submits that the amounts assessed to tax are huge and it is necessary that the interest of Respondent be protected. In the circumstances according to him an order directing an interim payment of 50% of demand is just and reasonable in the facts of the present case and calls for no interference by this Court. 5. We find that the CIT(A) in his order dated 11.05.2012 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that by granting of stay the assessee is likely to defeat the claim of the department then brief reasons for the same be indicated. In the present case, we find that the CIT(A) has completely ignored the parameters laid down by this court in the matter of KEC Ltd. (Supra) and has passed an order without considering all the submissions of the petitioners and also failing to point out even briefly in the Order as to why the interim payment of 50% of Rs.6.36 crores is necessary in the facts of the present case. We do not suggest that the reasons must be elaborate for the order is only on an interim application. However, brief reasons indicating the basis of a prima facie view are necessary. 6. However, we find that the petitioners has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2012 is quashed and set aside; (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall pass a fresh order with reasons on the petitioner's stay application dated 27.04.2012, preferably within two weeks from the receipt of this order. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment. The petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in the first instance, at 11:00 a.m. On 2nd July, 2012 and thereafter as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (c) The petitioner's undertaking not to dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right, title and/or interest in respect of the immovable property at Noida, is accepted. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
