9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard learned counsel for the parties and now we proceed to decide the matter. Briefly the facts are these. By order dated October 31, 1996, passed under section 158BC(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, the undisclosed income of the petitioner was determined at Rs. 13,13,49,778. On November 9, 1996, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not applied its independent mind for considering and deciding the said application which has been dismissed simply on the ground that the Commissioner has already granted stay of the demand in terms of order dated March 3, 1997. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the contention of the Departmental re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Income-tax has already granted stay of the demand. It is not a case where the Commissioner has granted blanket stay in favour of the petitioner. The stay was subject to the petitioner depositing ten per cent. of the demand which worked out to approximately Rs. 78.8 lakhs. It seems that the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he is entitled to a complete stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate authority for the reason that the appellate authority has not independently decided the application and has rejected the stay petition merely on the ground of an order having been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax. In our view, the appellate authority is required to independently decide the application on its own merits. Thus it would be open for Mr. Aggarwal to cite the aforesaid decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
