9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- There is no disputation or disagreement as between the petitioner's counsel and the learned Revenue counsel that this is incorrect. This is evident and obvious from the first and second sentences in the first paragraph of impugned order. The first sentence says that stay of demand is governed by said instruction and second sentence says that writ petitioner is not covered by said instruction. As there is no disputation or disagreement that the writ petitioner's case i.e., writ petitioner's plea that interim order is covered by said instruction read with Section 220(6) of IT Act and as the only ground on which the prayer has been negatived is that the writ petitioner is not covered by said instruction, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.S.Premalatha Junior Standing Counsel ORDER This order will now dispose of the captioned writ petition and captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition'['WMP' for the sake of brevity]. 2. Ms.A.Niveditha, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel submitted that there was a search operation qua the writ petitioner under Section 132 of the 'Income Tax Act, 1961' ('IT Act' for the sake of brevity); that on the basis of seized material, a notice under Section 153C of IT Act was issued; that this was followed by a notice dated 14.12.2021 under Section 143(2) and a notice dated 20.01.2022 under Section 142(1); that all this culminated in an order dated 28.03.2022 made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with Ms.S.Premalatha, learned Junior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) who accepted notice for both the respondents. 4. As already alluded to supra, the impugned order of the first respondent is terse and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 5. The impugned order has been made on one basis and that lone basis is that the writ petitioner's case is not covered under 'Instruction No.1914 dated 02.12.1993 as modified by two Office Memoranda dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017' [hereinafter collectively 'said instruction' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. There is no disputation or disagreement as between the petitioner's counsel and the learned Revenue counsel that this is incorrect. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 12.01.2023; d) Though obvious it is made clear that the writ petitioner's petition styled 'petition to keep the demand of tax in abeyance' before the first respondent now gets revived and the same will stand over for consideration by the first respondent as per the aforementioned directive within aforementioned time line. (e) Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and the facts have been captured for limited purpose of appreciating this order. Captioned writ petition disposed of with the aforementioned directives. Consequently, captioned WMP is disposed of as closed. There shall be no ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
