TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority in issuing the impugned notices. In the circumstances, rejection of the prayer for stay by the AO when the appeal is pending before the first appellate authority and the stay prayer is pending before the administrative Commissioner, in our view, would not be of much consequence. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Act, which has been registered as CIT (A)-20.Mumbai/10324/2018-19 should be heard and decided by the first appellate authority in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. During this period of four weeks, the impugned notices under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shares, taxable as income of the assessee under the head of income from other resources . Thus, vide the assessment order dated 27.12.2018, an amount of ₹ 496,25,40,000.00 was rounded off as the taxable income of the petitioner. 4. This was followed by the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act dated 27.12.2018 whereby petitioner was informed that a sum of ₹ 2,28,44,52,663.00 is payable as income tax. 5. It is stated that against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2018, petitioner has preferred appeal under Section 246-A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai on 23.01.2019. 6. Mr. Mistry has submitted that in the appeal proceeding, petitioner has submitted written arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to satisfy the demand. But the basic crux of the argument of Mr. Mistry is that when the stay application is pending and without taking any decision on the stay application, it was not justified on the part of the revenue authorities in issuing the impugned notices. He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in UTI Mutual Fund Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2012) 345 ITR 71 to contend that a revenue authority dealing with a prayer for stay is required to exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the parameters laid down in the said judgment. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Walve submits that a speaking order has been passed by the Assessing Officer on 20.09.2019 rejecting the prayer for stay of the demand. It was thereafter tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
