9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed by the Tribunal. It was not the case of the petitioner that only because it has filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, the entire demand should be stayed. As perused the CBDT Circular No.530 dated 06.03.1989 and considered the decision of this Court in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2014 (2) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] On due consideration, we are of the view that the impugned demand notice dated 20.11.2019 issued by respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2017-18 is liable to be stayed till disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. We also direct that the first appellate authority may expedite hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 14.12.2019. - WRIT PETITION NO.766 O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner under Section 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly the Act hereinafter) was declined by the assessing officer and the amount covered by the said claim i.e., ₹ 2,96,10,186.00 was added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Following passing of the assessment order, respondent No.1 issued notice of demand to the petitioner under Section 156 of the Act on the same day. 5. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, also referred to as the first appellate authority , on 14.12.2019 for which 272033491141219 was provided as the acknowledgment number. 6. While the appeal of the petitioner is pending, petitioner submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioner itself the higher authorities had held the petitioner to be a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P of the Act. Therefore, there was no reason for the assessing officer to take a different view in the present assessment year. 9. By a cryptic order dated 18.02.2020, respondent No.2 rejected the stay application of the petitioner while directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand in which event the balance demand would be stayed till decision of appeal by the first appellate authority. 10. In the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of CBDT Circular No.530 dated 06.03.1989 whereby it was clarified that when the demand in dispute relates to an iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. Since the appeal of the petitioner is pending before the first appellate authority, hearing of the same may be expedited. 12. Submissions made have been considered. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we feel that the approach taken by both respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not accepting the stay prayer of the petitioner and instead directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand is not justified. The two authorities did not address the issues raised by the petitioner, namely, that in his own case for earlier assessment years against orders passed by the assessing officer on the same issue, the first appellate authority had held it to be a co-operative society and entitled to deduction under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
