| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 1826 (Mad-HC) : (2019) 413 ITR 0390 : (2019) 311 CTR 0361 : (2019) 263 TAXMAN 0309 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220(6)
It was incumbent upon AO to examine the existence of a prima facie case as well as to call upon assessee to demonstrate financial stringency, if any and arrive at the balance of convenience in the matter which constituted the 'trinity', so to say, and were indispensable in consideration of stay application. Thus, rejection of stay applications by way of a non-speaking order was not justified and AO was, therefore, directed to pass orders de novo on the stay application filed by assessee.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Rejection of stay application by passing non-speaking order -
Assessee filed an application for stay of recovery of demand under section 220(6) on the sole ground that assessee had preferred an appeal against the order of assessment which was pending before CIT(A). AO rejected assessee's application holding that mere filing of appeal could not be a ground for stay of the demand. Accordingly, assessee was requested to pay the demand immediately. Held: It was incumbent upon AO to examine the existence of a prima facie case as well as to call upon assessee to demonstrate financial stringency, if any and arrive at the balance of convenience in the matter which constituted the 'trinity', so to say, and were indispensable in consideration of stay application. Thus, rejection of stay applications by way of a non-speaking order was not justified and AO was, therefore, directed to pass orders de novo on the stay application filed by assessee.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2016-17
IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Kannammal v. ITO
W.P. No. 3849 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 4278 of 2019
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|