INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254 Section 220(6) Section 253(1) (2)

Appeal [Tribunal] - Maintainability - Appealable order vis-a-vis administrative order - Pr. CIT declined grant of stay during currency of first appeal before CIT(A)

Appeal before the Tribunal was an appeal against the order passed by the Pr.CIT said to be under section 220(6), in rejecting the stay petition filed before him and directing the appellant to pay 20% of the demand as per CBDT Circular No. 1914 read with on dt. 29-2-2016. Held: As the impugned order states in so many words and which, to the best of Tribunal's limited knowledge of law, is not an appealable order before this Tribunal. The issue in appeal was whether an order passed by the Pr. CIT, declaining the stay on a collection of demand, can be appealed against before this Tribunal. There was no merits, not even prima facie merits in the stand of the assessee or in the request of the assessee for constitution of a Special Bench. The orders passed under section 220(6) cannot be appealed against before this Tribunal. The present appeal was, therefore, not a maintainable appeal before this Tribunal. In any event, the orders under section 220(6) can only be passed by the AO, and not by a Pr.CIT. The question of stay application is impugned in appeal before this Tribunal, that apart, the stay under section 220(6) can only be granted by the AO, and not by his supervisory authorities such as the Pr.CIT. As a matter of fact, an order passed by the Pr. CIT declining grant of stay during the currency of appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., CIT(A), is only an administrative order. The occasion to seek invocation of such an administrative indulgence comes after the AO declines to exercise his powers of granting stay under section 220(6), and, perhaps for this reason, it is somewhat inappropriately described as an order under section 220(6). Such an order was not an appealable order before this Tribunal, the law does not provide so. The present appeal was not an appeal maintainable before this Tribunal not only that the appeal was ill conceived, but, even after pointing out the legal position, rather than explaining his stand or expressing remorse for having filed this appeal, the assessee did not even bother to attend the court proceedings any further, and submitted this note pointing out, on the basis of, what appears to be, fallacious logic, as to why Special Bench was required to be constituted in this case. Such an approach cannot meet any judicial approval, including by this forum.

Relied:ITO v. M.K. Mohd Kunhi (1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC) : 1969 TaxPub(DT) 194 (SC). Distinguished:Bhupendra Murji Shah v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2018) 170 DTR 423 (Bom) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6781 (Bom-HC), Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR (Bom) 201 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6950 (Bom-HC), Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Addl. CIT (2015) 172 TTJ (Del) 140 : (2015) 153 ITD 642 (Del-Trib) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2221 (Del-Trib) decided on 10-4-2015, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. ITO (II)(2) Lkw (2015) 57 Taxmann.com3 (Lkw-Trib) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2448 (Luck-Trib), Mumbai I.T.A. No. 1763/Mum/19 in the case of M/s. Sale Mohammed Padamsee & Co. 22/29 Union Park, Padamsee Apartment Pali Hill Road, Knar (West) Mumbai 400052.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2009-10

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT