Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1893 2010 SLD 1893 (2010) 321 ITR 491 (2009) 184 TAXMAN 59
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1065 OF 2009, APRIL 8, 2009
S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.
Shubham Agarwal for the Petitioner. Govind Saran for the
Respondent.

Smita Agrawal (Ind.)

v.

Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Whether while considering stay application, authority concerned should exercise his power judiciously and should pass order after applying his mind to various aspects of matter, but that would not confer jurisdiction upon authority concerned to sit tight and choose not to pass any order whatsoever on stay application - Held, yes - Assessee had filed an appeal against assessment along with a stay application before Commissioner (Appeals) on 19-1-2009 but no order had been passed on her stay application till date and in meantime respondent No. 2 had proceeded to recover amount of penalty which had been imposed as a result of assessment and which was in appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals) - Assessee, therefore, filed writ petition - Whether, on facts, appellate authority was to be directed to hear stay application and dispose of same within a period of 15 days from date of order- Held, yes FACTS The assessee had filed an appeal on 19-1-2009 against the assessment along with a stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals), but no order had been passed on her stay application till date and in the meantime respondent No. 2 was proceeding to recover the amount of penalty, which had been imposed as a result of the impugned assessment. The assessee, therefore, filed writ petition contending that until her stay application was disposed of, no recovery should have been made from her. HELD There is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by the revenue that on mere asking an interim order should not be passed. In the matter involving public revenue, the Court should be slow in passing interim order unless it is found that an interim order is in the interest of justice. However, the two propositions had no application in the instant case for the simple reason that, though the appeal was preferred by the assessee as long back as on 19-1-2009 and more than two and half months had passed, yet the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed any order whatsoever. The grievance of the assessee was not that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed order in her favour but what she contended was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492