TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals] against the Assessment order for the year 2013-14. Instruction No.1914 dated 02.12.1993 of the Board would make it clear that the stay petition filed with the Assessing Officer must be disposed of within two weeks of the filing of petition by the taxpayer.. The assessee must be intimated of the decision without delay. In terms of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum [F.NO.404/72/93-ITCC] dated 29.02.2016, in order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT [A], the following modified guidelines are being issued in partial modification of Instruction No.1914: [Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the demand of ₹ 30,58,917/-. 3. The petitioner is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short]. It is the contention of the petitioner that the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 has been filed, declaring Nil total income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The second respondent selected the case of the petitioner for scrutiny and issued notice under Section 143[2] of the Act and thereafter notice was issued under Section 142[2A] of the Act. Reply was filed by the petitioner to the said notice. The Assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act by the second respondent making certain additions and issued a demand notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n default for the purpose of recovery of demand as the stay applications are pending before the respondent No.2. Thus, seeks for interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, appearing for the Revenue though fairly submits that during the pendency of the stay applications before the respondent No.2, issuance of recovery of notice is contrary to the Instructions No.1914, but made an endeavour to justify the action of the respondents. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that the respondent No.1 has proceeded to issue the recovery notice during the pendency of the stay applications pending before the respondent No.2, when an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue or addition is based on credible evidence collected in a search or survey operation, etc.,] 9. The action of respondent No.1 in initiating the recovery notice is obviously contrary to the aforesaid Instructions and the Office Memorandum issued by the Board. Hence, the same cannot be held to be justifiable which necessarily calls for interference by this Court. 10. In the circumstance as aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the recovery notice at Annexure-A and to direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner on 09.05.2016 and 04.02.2017 vide Annexures-B and E respectively to the writ petition. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. The recovery notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
