Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2244 2004 SLD 2244 (2004) 266 ITR 62
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 754 OF 2003 JUNE 3, 2003
R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Shivangi Steels (P.) Ltd.

v.

Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - When tax payable and assessee deemed in default - Whether although section 220(6) gives discretion to assessing authority to treat an assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in appeal even though time for payment has expired long back but appeal has remained undisposed of, same has to be exercised judiciously in accordance with law - Held, yes - While petitioner's appeal against order of block assessment was pending before respondent No. 2 Commissioner (Appeals), respondent No. 1-Assistant Commissioner rejected application filed by petitioner under section 220(6) on ground that he had not deposited amount in dispute even after a period of more than one year and, therefore, demand could not be stayed - Whether since respondent No. 1 had not given any reason for rejecting aforesaid application and had not exercised its jurisdiction under section 220(6) judiciously, its order deserved to be set aside - Held, yes CASE REFERRED TO Lala Hirday Narain v. ITO AIR 1971 SC [Para 3]. ORDER R.K. Agarwal, J. - The contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an Appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Agra respondent No. 2. Application filed under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax. Central Circle, Agra. Respondent No. 1 after a period of more than 1 year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter-affidavit in accordance with the rules of court. 3. I have heard Shri Tarun Agarwala counsel for the petitioner and Shri…
🔒
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