Law:

Section: 131(1),131(5),132(3),132(6)

THIS ORDER PASSED BY: CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER:------------------------- The above titled miscellaneous application seeking grant of stay against recovery of tax demand as well as appeal against the order of CIR(Appeals), Zone-I, Lahore dated 04-03-2015, agitating refusal of stay, have been filed at the instance of the Applicant Taxpayer. Mr. Shehbaz Butt, learned counsel is present for the taxpayer whereas Mr. Asim Aleem, learned DR has tendered appearance on behalf of the department/respondent. 2. The learned counsel only reiterated the grounds as contained in the grounds of appeal and the application for stay. He stated that the learned CIR(Appeals) has failed to pass a speaking order. Further submitted that the appellant has a prima facie arguable case with every likelihood of success and balance of convenience also lies in its favour and if the department is not restrained from recovery of the impugned tax demand, it will cause irreparable loss. 4. On the other hand, learned DR has fully opposed the arguments of learned counsel and submits that the applicant has failed to point out any legal infirmity or lacuna in the order passed by the learned appellate authority. He added that the Commissioner (Appeal) has passed a speaking order and has refused the grant of stay mainly on the ground that the appellant could not make out a prima facie arguable case. 5. We have gone through the facts of the case and carefully considered the contentions of both the parties at the bar. In terms of first proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, this Tribunal is empowered to stay the recovery for a period not exceeding 180 days only in those cases where the tax levied has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the levy of tax has not yet been upheld by the Commissioner, who after careful consideration of facts and affording opportunity of hearing has regretted grant of stay to the taxpayer on the ground that the appellate could not make out a prima facie arguable case. The learned A R has failed to point out any mistake, or legal flaw in the order of the first appellate authority, in the absence of any such…