9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid order in MRS. KANNAMMAL case has been given legal quietus and there is no appeal against the same. As the Revenue has given legal quietus and finality to the aforesaid order, it follows as a indisputable sequitur that the Revenue has to necessarily follow the parameters laid down in the said order for disposal of stay petition. Before this Court proceeds further, to be fair to the first respondent, it is to be recorded that this Court has noticed that the impugned order was passed on 22.09.2017, whereas the aforesaid order came to be passed by this Court only on 13.02.2019. Be that as it may, as there is no dispute or disagreement that the aforesaid order is operating and the obtaining position with regard to disposal of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax assessee and the entire writ petition pertains to assessment year 2012-2013. 6. Considering the narrow scope of the writ petition and the stated position of the learned Standing counsel for respondents, it may not be necessary to advert to the facts in great detail. 7. Suffice to say that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent and has also taken out a stay petition therein. 8. Stay petition came to be rejected by an order dated 22.09.2017 bearing reference No.6102/PCIT-6/2015-16, which is called in question in the instant writ petition and the same shall therefore be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generally that the assessee shall be called upon to remit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretion to the authority to either increase or decrease the quantum demanded based on the three vital factors to be taken into consideration. 14. The disposal of the request for stay by the petitioner leaves much to be desired. I am of the categoric view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for the grant of stay as well as the seeking stay filed by the petitioner is itself cryptic. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mahindra Mills, ((2008) 296 ITR 85 (Mad)) in the context of grant of depreciation, the Circular of the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was passed on 22.09.2017, whereas the aforesaid order came to be passed by this Court only on 13.02.2019. 13. Be that as it may, as there is no dispute or disagreement that the aforesaid order is operating and the obtaining position with regard to disposal of stay petitions, it follows as a natural sequitur that the impugned order which is cryptic and which does not make any reference to the parameters and determinants adumbrated in the aforesaid order deserves to be set aside. 14. However, the matter is sent back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 600 006 for disposal of the stay petition with regard to assessment year 2012-2013 afresh after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
