9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing the expenses as the assessment was likely to become time barred and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit the information called for. Further it was stated they through their authorised representatives had earlier furnished all the ledger accounts and details as required by the Assessing Officer from time to time. Further it was stated that aggrieved by the assessment order, they have preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Range 15 on 18.01.2017. On perusal of the order of assessment, it is seen that the respondent accepted the fact that the authorised representative of the petitioner appeared before him on various dates and filed the details called for. However, in the assessment order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the demand raised in assessment before the petitioner wishes to request for the stay of demand till the disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. In my considered view, the impugned order is a classical case of non-application of mind and abdication of the powers of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has a right to approach the Assessing Officer praying for stay of the demand pending disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, when the Assessing Officer considers the Stay Petition, he has to consider whether the petitioner/Assessee has made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. It may be true that CBDT has issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved by the assessment order, they have preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Range 15 on 18.01.2017. 4. With these averments, the petitioner has sought for a complete stay of the demand till the disposal of the appeal and prayed for giving an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order and also requested to send all notices and communications to the address given in the said stay petition. Unfortunately, the first respondent did not take note of any of the submission made by the petitioner including the request for a personal hearing. The first respondent has not denied or disputed the averments made by the petitioner that the notice dated 05.12.2016 was received by them only on 23.12.2016 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
