9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deal with the stay application, if filed by the Petitioner, within two weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is available. - Writ Petition No.2563 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2013 - Mohit S Shah And M S Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellants : Ms Ritika Agarwal with Mr Prashant H More For the Respondent : Mr Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv. JUDGEMENT:- P C: At the request of the Counsel for both sides, the petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The basic grievance in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 10 September 2013 of the Assessing Officer (respondent No.1) dismissing the Petitioner's application dated 2 September 2013 for a stay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of on 8 August 2013 be reconsidered. 4. On behalf of the Revenue it is contended that the Petitioner had filed its return of income tax declaring a loss at Rs.3.86 lakhs. However, on scrutiny the income was determined at Rs.3.10 crores resulting in total tax demand along with interest aggregating to Rs.1.42 crores. It is submitted that the Petitioner sought to delay the payment of tax by filing applications for rectification of the assessment order under Section 154 of the Act. This even after application for rectification were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. It is also submitted that the Bank Accounts have already been attached. Moreover the order dated 10 September 2013 on the Stay Application has recorded a finding of fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal hearing and also consider the prima facie case of the Petitioner before disposal of the application of stay. Admittedly, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing of the order dated 10 September 2013. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 10 September 2013 passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the stay application filed by the Petitioner consequent to the assessment order dated 25 March 2013. 6. Normally, we would have restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after granting the Petitioner a personal hearing and complying with the directions issued in KEC International (supra) and UTI (supra). However, as the Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
