TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and also the decision rendered by this Court in M/s Aarti Sponge Power Ltd. [ 2018 (4) TMI 1284 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assigning Officer to consider the stay applications afresh in light of the guidelines as stated by the Bombay High Court and followed by this Court in M/s Aarti Sponge Power Ltd. [ 2018 (4) TMI 1284 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] and pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Also, till the decision of the stay applications, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. - WPT No. 74, 75, 76, 77 of 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assigning Officer has rejected the applications for stay simply stating that the request of the balance demand cannot be accepted at present and the said applications have been rejected without assigning any reason. This Court in the matter of M/s Aarti Sponge Power Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Others WPT Nos. 59/2018 60/2018, decided on 10.04.2018 indicated the procedure to be followed by the Assigning Officer as under :- 18. In my opinion, the said question is no longer res integra and it has been well settled by a decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan and others 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1229 in which S.H. Kapadia, J, as then His Lordship was speaking for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order. (e) We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No.2 herein need not once again give reasoned order. 19. The aforesaid guidelines have been followed later-on again by the Bombay High Court in the matter of UTI Mutual Fund v. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(2) and others 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 390 in which Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J (as then His Lordship was) while following the decision rendered in KEC International Ltd. (supra) again held some more guidelines as under: - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercising the powers of stay, the Income Tax Officer should not act as a mere tax gatherer but as a 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 to the assessee. Though the AO 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. 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it appears that Assigning Officer has not adopted the correct procedure in deciding the stay applications of the petitioners and has not followed the guid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
