Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (3) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... abundantly clear that the assessing authority while considering the stay application has to act as a quasi judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable. This court had highlighted that though the Assessing Officer had made the assessment, nonetheless at the time of deciding stay of the demand, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against the order which in fact has been filed in the present case. Order dated 31.01.2020 is devoid of any reasons which reflects non-application of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequentially, the action of attaching the bank account of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner had escaped assessment, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued; where-after assessment order was passed on 23.12.2019 by Respondent No. 1 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 4. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer noted that the Petitioner had sold agricultural land in Gujarat of which Petitioner was the co-owner. It was also noted that the amount received pursuant to the sale transaction of the said agricultural land was not disclosed by the Petitioner. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated the sale transaction amount of ₹ 2,62,05,343 as the unexplained income of the Petitioner under section 69-A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 5. Pursuant thereto a notice o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the addition by taking the view that no addition could have been made to the income of the appellants (co-owners) and the other co-owner meaning thereby the Petitioner. The first appellate authority, therefore, directed deletion of the addition made in the case of the other two co-owners. In the stay application, the Petitioner further stated that he is a senior citizen of about 87 years of age. Though he is an Advocate by profession, because of old age and ill health, he is no longer in legal practice. Because of frequent hospitalization and medical treatment his financial condition is not sound. That apart his bank account in the PMC Bank could not be operated because of the moratorium imposed on the bank for various reasons. In thes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel, revenue, appearing for the Respondents, however, supports the stand taken by the Respondents. According to him the demand being very high, Respondents have been reasonable in insisting payment of only 20% of the demand. He further submits that regarding claim of Petitioner on merit the same will be dealt-with by the first appellate authority in the appeal proceeding. He, therefore, submits that there may not be any blanket stay on the entire demand raised by the Revenue. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and given our due consideration. 13. This court in UTI Mutual Fund vs. Income Tax Officer, 345 ITR 71, had laid down a series of guidelines for the revenue authorities to follow wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quasi judicial authority vested with the public duty of protecting the interest of the Revenue while at the same time balancing the need to mitigate hardship of the assessee. Though the assessing officer has made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against his order : the matter must be considered from all its facets, balancing the interest of the assessee with the protection of the Revenue. 14. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we find that Respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 did not at all consider the various issues raised by the Petitioner in his stay application and merely called upon the Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand. This c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates