9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay. 2. Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax on 16.1.2018 impugning the Assessment Order for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 19.12.2017 thereby assessing the income of Rs. 5,29,52,162 and final demand of Rs. 1,78,61,830/-. 3. The Assessing Authority passed an order on 5.3.2018 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of demand of tax for stay of the whole demand. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.13233 of 2019 before this Court. By an order dated 10.4.2019, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13233 of 2018 observed that the office memorandum has streamlined the procedure for considering stay petition and it lays down payment of 20% of tax demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty be directed to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously without directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of 20% of the tax demand. 7. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Murji Shah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & ors., (2018) 305 CTR (Bom.) 88 and would submit that in the facts of that case, this Court had directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal itself without compliance of any pre-condition of deposit of 20%. 8. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the amount demanded from the petitioner is substantial. The petitioner has challenged the earlier order passed by the Assessing Officer before this Court by filing a writ petition. Whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Commissioner of Income Tax by passing a detailed reasoned order dated 26.8.2019. 11. In our view, the Assessing Officer was justified in not exercising the discretion to grant unconditional stay or stay on payment of lesser amount than 20% of the tax demand. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the said case of the petitioner has recorded reasons in great detail. The Commissioner of Income Tax while rejecting the Review Application has recorded reasons as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall not be interfered with. We do not find any infirmity in the order passing by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income Tax while rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting unconditional stay durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order clarified that this Court would have relegated the petitioner to the remedy of making an application for stay before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and thereafter left it to the Commissioner of Income Tax to take an appropriate decision thereon. However, since the appeals were not being heard, such order came to be passed. This Court also clarified that the said order shall not be treated as precedent for all cases of of this nature. This Court recorded an undertaking of the petitioner in that matter that during the pendency of the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the petitioner shall not dispose of or create third party right in respect of his movable assets and properties. 14. In our view, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
