TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent had followed instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) to the effect that where outstanding demand is disputed before the appellate authority, the assessee has to pay 20% of the disputed demand. Accordingly, petitioner has been directed to pay 20% of the outstanding demand. We are afraid 1st respondent did not apply his mind while passing the order dated 16.01.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oercive steps for realizing the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2017-18. - Hon ble The Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan And Hon ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji For the Petitioner : A V A Siva Kartikeya For the Respondent : J V Prasad Sr. Sc For Income Tax ORDER: PER THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioner has been assessed at Rs. 24,89,27,611.00 whereafter notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent on 30.03.2022 itself. Petitioner filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Act before the 1st respondent for stay of demand. By the order dated 16.01.2023, 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand on o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16.01.2023. It appears to be a mechanical exercise of power. When the Income Tax authority exercises jurisdiction under Section 220(6) of the Act, he exercises quasi-judicial powers. While exercising quasi-judicial powers, the authority is not bound or confined by departmental instructions. 6. This position has been well settled by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
