9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a conditional order of stay of Ext. P1 assessment order. 2. Aggrieved by Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Out of abundant caution, the petitioner moved Ext. P4 stay application before the 4th respondent - the Assessing Authority - under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act)'. The fourth respondent passed Ext. P5 conditional order of stay directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand amount. Dissatisfied with Ext. P5 order, the petitioner preferred Ext. P6 application before the second respondent, for review of Ext. P4 order. The petitioner also filed Ext. P7 detailed submissions before the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire issue. 5. Sri. Christopher Abraham, on the other hand, argued that there is absolutely no error or illegality in Ext. P8 order warranting interference by this Court. The second respondent has passed a well-reasoned order following the guidelines laid down by the CBDT. He has exercised his discretionary powers and directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the demand to stay recovery proceedings. This Court may not interfere with such discretionary powers, which can never be termed as erroneous or illegal. There are no grounds made out in the writ petition warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. The petitioner has filed Ext. P2 appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt does not sit in appeal over such decisions. 10. A reading of Ext. P8 order demonstrates that the second respondent has very cautiously and carefully considered the matter and has passed a reasoned order, without going into the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the demand to stay the recovery proceedings. I do not find any manifest error or illegality in Ext. P8 order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. At the said point of time, Sri. Raja Kannan submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to move a stay petition before the Appellate Authority in Ext. P2 appeal and the appellate authority may be directed to consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
