TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and the said application having been considered was, in fact, rejected for grant of blanket stay only. AO has stated that, as a condition precedent if the petitioner comes forward to pay 20% of the demand, stay would be granted. The Assessing Officer would further be stated that, if at all the petitioner in order to get further ease in making payment of 20% of the demand by way of installment, that also would be considered, provided, if the assessee comes forward to make application to that effect. On seeing the said order dated 08.12.2021 passed under Section 220(6) of the Act, wherein the provision wrongly quoted as 226 of the Act, it is a reasoned order, where, the Assessing Officer, considering the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny cannot be construed as a notice issued without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the impugned notice does not require any interference from this Court at this stage. - W.P.No.3102 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos.3271 & 3274 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice R.Suresh Kumar For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Swarnavel For the Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in PAN No.AAFPK9519F in DIN Notice No.ITBA/RCV/S/221/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings before the CIT (Appeal) is pending, without deciding the stay petition, normally, the Assessing Authority would not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 221(1) of the Act. 7. He would also submit that, further when the petitioner made an application under Section 220(6) of the Act to stay the demand before the Assessing Authority, who, without considering the same in proper perspective, by evaluating the case of the petitioner and by giving reasons, has rejected the said application in a proceedings dated 08.12.2021, that too, styled as a proceedings issued under Section 220(6) as if that the said order is a garnishee proceedings issued on the part of the Assessing Authority in deciding the application under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it has further been stated by the Assessing Authority even for the payment of 20% of the demand, if the petitioner wants installment benefit, that also be considered if he makes an application to that effect. Therefore, when such a consideration has already been shown in the application submitted by the petitioner assessee under Section 220(6) of the Act and the petitioner assessee since has not responded to the said order and the option given to him to pay even on installment basis of 20% of the demand for the grant of stay, the present move taken by the petitioner to challenge the notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings is without any plausible reason or ground, therefore, impugned notice cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the facts and circumstances of the case, has used his discretion, of course, with condition which is a mandatory one that to be imposed by the Assessing Officer while exercising his discretion under Section 220(6) of the Act. 13. On the factual matrix of the case as well as the reasonable disposal of the stay application by the Assessing Officer, this Court feels that, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner may not apply to the facts of the present case. 14. Moreover, the petitioner seems to have filed further application before the Principal Commissioner to seek for a stay and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is still pending, therefore, he can very well pursue the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|