9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - assessee is a running institution and there is no threat of it deliberately thwarting recovery and thus causing prejudice - garnishee proceedings were initiated and notice was issued to the assessee u/s 226(3)(iii) of the Act and a major portion of the demand has now been recovered from the assessee - the recovery steps initiated is definitely capricious - the assessee had remedies which they did not avail of and no violation of statutory compliance is discernible - taking into account the fact that appeal is pending before the FAA - a major portion of the demand has now been satisfied, there shall be no further recovery steps initiated till the appeal is disposed of – Decided in favour of Assessee. - WP(C). No. 14560 of 2014 - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pending before the Appellate Authority. This Court is also frequently confronted with applications for stay being mechanically disposed of without even prima facie consideration of the case put forth by the assessees in the appeal. 4. Herein, stay application filed before the Appellate Authority was not disposed of as yet, and the petitioner assessee was before the Assessing Officer itself as permissible under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act. Ext.P5 is the order under Section 220, which does not disclose any reason or even a consideration of the relevant circumstances put forward by the petitioner. There is also no extenuating circumstance stated which would effectively defeat the recovery, if delay is caused and the recovery is ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute to go in appeal. However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order. (e). We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No.2 herein need not once again give reasoned order . 5. The power under Section 226 of the Act is also one to be invoked with circumspection and caution and cannot be at the will and caprice of the authority. This Court in Rajan Nair v. ITO ([1987] 165 ITR 650 (Ker.)) observed thus: In exercising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tay, the Income Tax Officer should not act as a mere tax gatherer but as a quasi-judicial authority vested with the public duty of protecting the interests of the Revenue while at the same time balancing the need to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against his order the matter must be considered from all its facets, balancing the interest of the assessee with the protection of the Revenue. These guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court are binding on the revenue authorities, especially the authorities under the Income Tax Act who exercise jurisdiction all over the country. They are reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
