TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve ignored the binding decision of this Court in KEC International Ltd., v/s. B. R. Balakrishnan & Others [2001 (3) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court] and UTI Mutual Funds v/s. ITO (2012 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) which laid down the manner in which stay application under Section 220(6) of the Act have to be disposed of by the authorities under the Act. In the above circumstances, we set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 30th January, 2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and also the order dated 19th February, 2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Both the impugned orders have rejected the Petitioner's application for stay under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). This stay was sought in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are binding decision on all the authorities within the State, yet the Assessing Officer as well as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax appear to have chosen to ignore the same. At this stage, we proceed on the basis that not following the decisions of this Court was possibly a mistake on the part of both the authorities. Therefore, presently, we do not call for any explanation from them. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax, both would grant the necessary hearing to the Petitioner. At that time, the Petitioner would be at liberty to make further submissions in support of its application for stay. 5. We further direct that the Respondent-Revenue will not act upon the Notice of demand issued, consequent to Assessment Order dated 22nd December, 2017 till one week after the Assessing Officer's order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
