TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be governed by the proceedings which are pending before the CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Years 200607 and 200708 which have been heard, but where orders are awaited - Petitions are accordingly disposed of - WRIT PETITION NO.2401 OF 2012, 2408 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2012 - DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Ms. Aarti Sathe with Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.N. Singh for the Respondents. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) for Assessment Years 200607 and 200708 have already been heard and orders were awaited. In these circumstances, a stay of the balance demand was sought. A further communication was addressed on 9 March 2012 to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7 (the Third Respondent) upon which the authority has endorsed to the effect that since the ACIT, Circle 7 has already started recovery proceedings, there is no point before him to consider. On 9 March 2012 a garnishee notice has been issued to the State Bank of India, the bankers of the Petitioner under Section 226(3) calling upon the bank to forthwith pay the amount of the demand due. 4. On the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner we grant leave to amend the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 have been spelt out. In KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan (2001) 251 ITR 158, the Division Bench emphasised the importance of reasoned orders being passed on the applications for stay. The Assessing Officers consistently refuse to follow the law laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The Assessing Officers and the Appellate Authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with binding precedent and there is no reason or justification to act in the manner in which the applications for stay have been disposed of in this case. The assessment orders would indicate that disallowances have been made on several grounds including (i) Admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
