TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 25-6-2013 - Aravind Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sri Ashok Kulkarni for M/s K R Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri KV Aravind, Adv. ORDER:- PER : Aravind Kumar This writ petition by the assessee is directed against an order dated 23.04.2013, Annexure-E, whereunder 2nd respondent in exercise of power under Sub-Section (6) of Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1961" for short) has rejected the application for stay of the demand made pursuant to the assessment order dated 19.03.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. Petitioner is also seeking for a direction to 1st respondent to dispose of the stay application, Annexure-F within a time frame. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kulkarni, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME-TAX (EXEMPTION) AND OTHERS 4. Per contra, Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent - revenue would support the order passed by 2nd respondent and would contend that in view of assessee having subsequently filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT (Appeals)" for short) and an application for stay also having been filed, he would submit that same would be expeditiously considered and as such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition or suitable directions being issued to the CIT (Appeals). 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of case papers, it is noticed that subsequent to order of assessment being passed on 19.03.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) AND OTHERS "In the present case, as in several cases which have come up before this court and particularly in the month of March, it is evident that the Assessing Officer and the Director of Incometax have both had scant regard tot eh parameters which have been laid down by this court for disposal of stay applications. No reasons are indicated. The orders do not contain a prima facie evaluation of the issues which would arise in appeal. In UTI Mutual Fund (since reported in (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom), this court was constrained to issue a cautionary observation to the effect that Assessing Officers and appellate authorities, when they dispose of applications for stay, act as quasi-judicial authorities and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y event within two weeks of the receipt of the petition. Such a decision should be communicated to the assessee and the Assessing Officer immediately. iii. The decision in the matter of stay of demand should normally be taken by Assessing Officer/TRO and his immediate superior. A higher superior authority should interfere with the decision of the AO/TRO only in exceptional circumstances; e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee. The higher authorities should discourage the assessee from filing review petitions before them as a matter of routine or in a frivolous manner to gain time for withholding payment of taxes. 8. The guidelines h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay - Annexure-D has sought for personal hearing which undisputedly has not been afforded by second respondent. It is for this reason a conclusion has to be arrived that second respondent has failed to extend an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - assessee. On this short ground itself, the matter has to be remitted back to second respondent for adjudication afresh on this issue. It is to be noticed that on rejection of the application for stay, the Bank accounts of the assessee have been attached to by the second respondent in order to safeguard the interest of Revenue. I am of the considered view that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the second respondent to dispose of the application for stay - Annexure-D file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee on the application - Annexure-D and pass orders under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within an outer limit of 10 days from today and without waiting for any further notice or copy of this order. 4. Petitioner / assessee shall appear before 2nd respondent on 26.06.2013 at 3.00 p.m. 5. 1st respondent - CIT (Appeals) shall dispose of the application for stay - Annexure-F dated 26.04.2013, within an outer limit of four weeks from today. 6. It is also made clear that order of attachment passed on 10.06.2013, Annexure-H and H1 shall be in force and shall continue till disposal of application for stay - Annexure-D or Annexure-F whichever is earlier and it would be subject to the outcome of the decision or order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
