TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demand cannot be considered in view of the decision taken by the second respondent which culminated in the issuance of garnishee notice dated 23.03.2018 at Annexure-Y in defiance with the order of this Court in not providing one week time before initiating coercive recovery action. Respondent No.3 referring to the same, failed to exercise the statutory powers vested with him. Statutory Appellate Authority ought to have adjudicated upon the Application for stay filed by the petitioner. The basis for declining to entertain the stay application is the order of the second respondent dated 14.02.2018 which goes to the root of the matter. Had the second respondent considered the request of the petitioner in accordance with law and passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 69 of the Act against the returned income on the basis that the petitioner was unable to explain the source of funds in respect of the investment made by him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before the petitioner availing its statutory remedy, the first respondent had issued a notice dated 23.01.2018 calling upon to make payment of the same by 31.01.2018, failing which coercive measures would be taken to recover the demand. It appears that on the same day, the petitioner electronically filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent on various grounds and manually filed on 24.01.2018. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No.3, disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that the Authorities shall not initiate any precipitative action during the pendency of the stay application before the respondent No.3. In the event a decision is taken against the petitioner, the Authorities shall not precipitate the matter for a period of one week from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.3 has passed an order on 22.03.2018 referring to the judgment in the case of JAGADISH N HINDUJA V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) cited by the assessee and held that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to pass an order on the said application on the premise that the issue has been decided by the Principal CIT/respondent No.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee were required to deposit 50% of the demand amount, while disposing of the stay application. Further, second respondent has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons confirming the order of the respondent No.1 demanding 50% of the demand amount for grant of stay. 5. It is prima facie apparent that the order of the second respondent dated 14.02.2018 is a non- speaking order which cannot be sustained. Referring to the same, respondent No.3 has passed an order on 22.03.2018 that the request of the stay of demand cannot be considered in view of the decision taken by the second respondent which culminated in the issuance of garnishee notice dated 23.03.2018 at Annexure-Y in defiance with the order of this Court in not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
