9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether, while considering the application purported to have been filed under section 220(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before declining to grant the relief asked for. M/s. Kuku Rice Mills, petitioner No. 1, filed the return under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1988-89. The Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner-firm was pending before the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer rejected those applications by passing the orders, annexures P-7 to P-9, which are being challenged in the present writ petition. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that these impugned orders were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, secondly, these are not supported by reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the Department has argued that such applications were not maintainable as these were asking for a blanket stay of the recovery of the amount due and these applicants were not, in fact, praying for extension of time under section 220(3) of the Income-tax Act. It may be noticed that wrong provisions of the statute mentioned in the application or non-mentioning of the same will not be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
