9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty imposed by his order dated 16th March, 2018 till the disposal of its appeal which is proposed to file before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. This as the Act provides 30 days time to file an appeal and the stay application became necessary as the normal period of 30 days to pay the amounts had been curtailed to 7 days in the Notice under Section 156 of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are that on 16th March, 2018 the Assessing Officer passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.88 crores under Section 270(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. The impugned order dated 16th March, 2018 was served upon the petitioner on the same day along with a notice of demand und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was mentioned in the morning and kept on production board at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner had duly served the respondent revenue that the petition is to be taken up for hearing at 3.00 p.m. However, before the petition could be heard at 3.00 p.m., the Assessing Officer withdrew the amount of Rs. 9.88 lakhs from the petitioner's bank account at HDFC Bank Ltd. 7. It must be clarified that Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the petition was not received by the Assessing Officer before he withdrew the amounts from the attached bank account. However, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petition was attempted to be served upon the Assessing Officer, who did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent revenue that although the Revenue is no doubt entitled in an appropriate case to reduce the period of notice under Section 156 of the Act in terms of proviso to Section 220(1) of the Act, yet, the reasons for such reduction of period should be communicated to the petitioner as directed by this Court in Firoz Tin Factory Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,(Bom), 359 ITR 296. 11. In the above view, at the request and instance of the parties, the following consent order is passed :Uday (i) The impugned order dated 26th March, 2018 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the petitioner's stay application is set aside; (ii) The Assessing Officer shall in accordance with the decision of this Court in Firoz Tin Factory (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
