9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e granted. You are requested to make the payment of the demand of Rs.114.20 crore along with the interest u/s 220(2) of the IT Act within 7 days and show me the proof of payment of the same – held that - no coercive steps be taken by the Respondents for recovery of the amount due – appeal should be decided expeditiously by the CIT (A) – regarding application for extension of stay dated 13.10.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India to augment the oil security of India. 2. In its return filed for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer made substantial additions by disallowing various deductions made by the Petitioner, which amounted to more than 395.85 crore. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Petitioner prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.1 seeking stay of the demand of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30th March, 2009. The Respondent No.1 passed order dated 24th April, 2009 staying the demand of penalty till 30th June, 2009 as neither the quantum of appeal was decided by the Tribunal nor appeal against the penalty before the CIT (Appeal) filed at time the Petitioner moved another application for ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are given while declining the request of the Petitioner to extend the stay. We may also note at this stage that the Petitioner has filed an application before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-13, New Delhi as well for grant of stay of the order. This application was filed on 13th October, 2009. 8. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner is a Government undertaking; the quantum a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, we feel that the same should also be decided expeditiously by the CIT (A). 10. In case the application dated 13th October, 2009 preferred by the Petitioner is rejected, reasons in support of such a decision shall be given in the order. That order shall not be operative for a period of 15 days to enable to the Petitioner to seek further remedies as advised. 11. With these observations, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
