9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long as such appeal remains undisposed of." In the instant case, there was an order of assessment against the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the 22nd April, 1968, the petitioner wrote to the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment requesting postponement of payment of the tax assessed pending the disposal of the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this letter two grounds in support of the prayer to keep the matter of payment in abeyance have been advanced. The grounds are : (i) the petitioner has preferred an appeal and believes that his grievances would be redressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ; and (ii) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the demand. It seems to me that the reply of respondent No. 2, dated the 20th May, 1968, takes into account all the factors that the petitioner invited him to consider. He is right in saying that stay of realisation cannot be granted simply because an appeal has been preferred. If the petitioner wanted him to consider why the petitioner believed that he would be successful in the appeal, necessary materials for the purpose should have been placed before him. I do not find such materials in the petitioner's letter of the 22nd April, 1968, except bare assertions relating to the petitioner's belief that his grievances would be redressed on appeal. As regards the petitioner's inability to pay in a lump respondent No. 2 has promised to give h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 2 "all the functions of an Income-tax Officer under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under Chaptcr VII of the Income-tax Act, 1961". Section 220 relates to tax payable in a notice of demand under section 156 and the circumstances in which an assessee is deemed to be in default. By virtue of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made on the 15th January, 1968, the respondent No. 2, it seems, had the power to deal with and dispose of the petitioner's application for stay of realisation under sub-section (6) of section 220. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner in these premises is also overruled. The third contention is that before addressing to the petitioner the letter of the 20th May, 1968, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
