TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition No. 423 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2012 - S J Vazifdar And M S Sanklecha, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel alongwith Mr. Atul K. Jasani For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Pinto alongwith Mr. D K Kamwal JUDGEMENT Per : M S Sanklecha, J : 1. Rule. By consent, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. At the instance and request of the Advocates for both the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 14.01.2011 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessing Officer) and the order dated 10.02.2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner's income, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.86.97 lacs. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). In the meantime, the Petitioner also sought a stay of the demand under Section 220(6) of the said Act from the Assessing Officer. By an order dated 14.01.2011, the Assessing Officer directed the Petitioner to pay 50% of the demand of Rs.86.97 lacs i.e. Rs.43.48 lacs on or before 15.02.2011 and ordered that subject to the above payment the balance amount of tax demand would be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 6. In view of the above, on 07.02.2011, the Petitioner filed an application to the Commissioner of Income Tax to stay the demand of Rs.86.97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and arbitrary result. Consequently, the entire proceedings are arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he submits that this court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and quash the orders dated 08.03.2011 and 30.11.2010 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer respectively. 9. Mr. Arvind Pinto, Counsel for the Respondent supports the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Mr. Pinto submits that being creatures of the statue, the officers are bound to apply Rule 8D of the said Rules for the purposes of arriving at expenditure to be disallowed under Section 14A of the said Act. Therefore, no fault could be found with the order passed by the Authorities. In any even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
