| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1786 (Bom-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Assessing authority while considering stay application has to act as a quasi judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable. Since in instant case, order was devoid of any reasons which reflected non-application of mind and therefore, could not be sustained.
|
Recovery - Grant of stay - Rejection of stay application in mechanical manner without application of mind -
Petitioner was aggrieved by order of ITO calling upon him to pay 20% of demand as a pre-condition for stay of demand; failing which it was stated that demand would be enforced and coercive measures would be taken to recover the demand. Held: It was found that ITO while passing said order did not at all consider various issues raised by Petitioner in his stay application and merely called upon Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand. In UTI Mutual Fund (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1939 (Bom-HC), it was held that assessing authority while considering stay application has to act as a quasi judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable. Since order was devoid of any reasons which reflected non-application of mind and therefore, could not be sustained. Consequentially, action of attaching bank account of petitioner was also not justified.
Followed:UTI Mutual Fund v. ITO 19(3) (2) & Ors. (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1939 (Bom-HC); KEC International Limited. v. BR. Balakrishnan & Ors. (2001) 251 ITR 158 : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1295 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|