TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting that standard rate for grant of stay had been revised from 15% to 20% of the disputed demand. The impugned order clearly makes no reference to the central issue in the pending appeal or the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the order passed by the AO. The impugned order in short is without reasons and is therefore unsustainable in law. For the above reasons, the impugned order is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) by which the Petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the tax demand of ₹ 32 crores amounting to ₹ 6.4 crores by 11th August, 2017 in order to get a stay of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer ( AO ) directed the Petitioner, by order dated 20th July 2017, to deposit 15% of the total tax demand in terms of the Office Memorandum ( OM ) dated 29th February, 2016. 5. The contention of the Petitioner is that the limitation period, in terms of Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act, had already expired. Aggrieved by the above order dated 20th July, 2017, the Petitioner went before the PCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the AO. The impugned order in short is without reasons and is therefore unsustainable in law. 8. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued that the Petitioner s application will once again be heard by the PCIT on merits and without reference to the OM dated 31st July, 2017, which, on the face of it, appears to curtail his discretion. The PCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
