| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3481 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Where application for stay of demand was disposed off by nonspeaking order and merely called upon assessee to remit 20% of disputed taxes without reference to the tri-fold aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience, thus, orders were set aside and recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance till passing of fresh order.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Application for stay of demand was disposed off by nonspeaking order -
Assessee challenged orders passed by AO and by the PCIT rejecting applications for stay of demand arising from disputed orders of assessment passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Held: Perusal of orders would show that same were non-speaking and merely call upon assessee to remit 20% of disputed taxes without reference to the tri-fold aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Evidently, matter needed more application of mind than what was seen. In the aforesaid circumstances, orders were set aside. Orders shall be passed afresh by competent authority after hearing assessee. Till such time, recovery proceedings were to be kept in abeyance.
Followed:Kannammal v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1826 (Mad-HC).
REFERRED : CIT v. Arun Textile 'C', Mahendra Mills & Anr. 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1304 (SC) and CIT v. Aircel Limited (2008) 296 ITR 85 (Mad) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0575 (Mad-HC).
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|