Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1241 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand u/s 220(6) - in order rejecting stay no reference is made to the facts of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience - opportunity to personal hearing has also not been granted - directed to pay 20% of the arrears immediately in the view that CBDT office memorandum in F.No.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.12.2016, being mandatory - HELD THAT:- As far as first two points are concerned, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice insofar as no personally opportunity has been granted and the order itself is mechanical and non speaking. As far as the third aspect is concerned, I have had occasion to deal with similar orders passed by assessing officers in order of MRS. KANNAMMAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) TIRUPUR [2019 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] The above order is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. In the light of the fact that the personal hearing sought for has not been granted accordingly, the order is not speaking and mechanical and there is absolutely no application of mind of the officer to the existence of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience, there is a merit in the submission of the petitioner that the order requires to be set aside. I accordingly do so. The officer shall fix a date for hearing of the stay application, issue notice to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the said petition, no coercive proceedings shall be initiated as regards recovery of the disputed demand. - writ Petition is disposed
|