Case Details

Citation(s)
1969 SLG 356 1969 SLD 356 (1969) 72 ITR 730
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 1785 OF 1967
VEERASWAMI AND RAMAPRASADA RAO, JJ.
K. Ramagopal for the Petitioner. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the
Respondent.

Mrs. N. Savithri Sam

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Stay of demand - Assessment year 1961-62 - Income-tax Officer having regard to petitioner's representation before Commissioner informed petitioner that he was prepared to stay collection of tax in dispute in appeal if he paid one-half relating to year 1961-62 before 25-5-1967 otherwise limited stay would be withdrawn - On 12-6-1967 petitioner applied ITO and stated that as soon as he sold a piece of land he would pay arrear of tax - Noting that petitioner did nothing thereafter ITO intimated petitioner that terms of his earlier order could not be altered but he was prepared to give time for payment till 12-6-1967 - Petitioner filed instant petition seeking direction to ITO to consider his application dated 12-6-1967 - Whether since application of petitioner dated 12-6-1967 did not appear to be one under section 220(6) and he did not ask for any stay on any terms, no order could be passed in instant petition - Held, yes FACTS On 17-5-1967, the ITO communicated to the petitioner that, having regard to his representation to the Commissioner on 9-4-1967, in regard to the payment of tax, the ITO was prepared to stay the collection of the tax in dispute in the appeal, if he paid one-half relating to the assessment year 1961-62 before 25-5-1967. The ITO added that, if the petitioner defaulted, even the limited stay would be deemed to be withdrawn. On 12-6-1967, the petitioner applied to the ITO and stated that as soon as a piece of land mentioned therein was sold, he would realise Rs. 25,000 and pay the same over towards the tax arrears immediately. The petitioner further stated that the ITO should bear with his difficulties and consider his case sympathetically. In the meanwhile, it appeared, a representative of the petitioner met the ITO and explained his difficulties. Noting that the petitioner did nothing thereafter, the ITO intimated to the petitioner that the terms of his earlier letter dated 17-5-1967, could not be altered but he was prepared to give time for payment till 12-6-1967, and if there was no payment there would be no stay. On writ : HELD Until 12-6-1967, there was thus no…
🔒
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