Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 804 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - Addition u/s 68 - Petitioner vehemently urged that the CIT(A) could not have refused to extend the stay order which was earlier granted by the AO - HELD THAT:- It transpires that the proviso contained in paragraph 2 of the Instruction No. 96 dated 21st August, 1969, which envisages that there should be no lapses on the part of the assessee for purposes of claiming the tax in dispute to be held in abeyance was conspicuously missing from Instruction No. 1914, dated 02nd February, 1993. CIT(A), it appears, while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of stay, relied upon the instruction which appears had since been superseded. Also noticed that the Petitioner had all along been making desperate attempts for placing on record documents as additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules, which application ought to have been decided inasmuch as there was sufficient time with the Appellate Authority to pass orders in that regard. Only thereafter a view then could have been taken as regards their genuineness or veracity. In the present case it appears that the Appellate Authority did not even deem it appropriate to decide the said application even when the Petitioner claims that a prayer was made for such a decision in that regard. We accordingly find prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner as it appears that the assessment was high pitched as was claimed who stated that as against the returned income of Rs.68,33,07,140/-, the income has been assessed at Rs.461,72,35,403/-. We stay the recovery based upon the impugned demand notices. Notwithstanding the fact that we have passed an interim order today, we direct the Appellate Authority to decide the application under Rule 46A, which is pending before it, as also the appeal within three months from today, Notwithstanding the pendency of the present petition before this Court. The directions passed today shall be liable to be vacated, in case it is reported that any deliberate attempt has been made before the Appellate Authority to delay the final decision in the appeal. Objections be fled to the writ petition within six weeks.
|