9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time it appears that the Income-tax Officer had forwarded a certificate to the Tax Recovery Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer had issued a notice under rule 2 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had also prayed to the Income-tax Officer for grant of a stay of realisation until the disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On June 29, 1968, the Income-tax Officer had granted a stay of the certificate up to 30th June, 1968. He informed that to the certificate officer and also had informed that fact to the petitioner. The appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has not yet been disposed of. The petitioner further applied to the Income-tax Officer for extension of the stay granted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it is apparent that the Income-tax Officer thought it fit that stay should be granted. He did not impose any condition in granting the stay that the petitioner should proceed diligently with the hearing of the appeal. It is not also the case that the appeal has not been heard due to any conduct on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it appears to me that when there was a subsequent application for extension of time and when the petitioner had already been granted a stay without imposing any condition, it was not open to the Income-tax Officer not to exercise his discretion any further. He could have, however, refused to extend the time if there was anything in the conduct of the petitioner which disentitled the petitioner to obtain fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the court should not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Income-tax Officer under section 220(6) of the Act. In this case, however, it appears to me from the order itself that the discretion has not been exercised on a correct principle. Furthermore, in this case failure to deal with the application for extension also, in my opinion, has established the fact that the discretion has not been properly exercised. Mr. Suhas Sen also drew my attention to the observation of By Subba Rao C.J. (as his Lordship then was) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Vetcha Sreeramamurthy v. Income-tax Officer, Vizianagram . In view, however, of the facts of this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
