Court grants stay on Rs. 10 crores demand, addresses appellant's concerns, despite failure to challenge initial order.

The Court directed the Appellate Authority to grant a stay on the disputed demand of Rs. 10 crores until the appeal's disposal, disregarding adverse remarks made by the Judge. The appellant's concerns over potential additional levies were addressed due to pending penalty appeal, as the Court considered the appellant's compliance in depositing Rs. 5 crores and accepting disallowances. The Court found it appropriate to grant a stay, despite the appellant's failure to challenge the initial order under Section 220(6) through a statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Mandamus to direct the Department of Income Tax to stay disputed demand of Rs. 10 crores.
2. Challenge of order under Section 220(6) without filing statutory appeal.
3. Apprehension of further levy due to pending appeal on penalty.
4. Grievance regarding adverse remarks made by the learned Judge.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a Mandamus to direct the Department of Income Tax to stay the disputed outstanding demand of Rs. 10 crores following an order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had accepted certain disallowances made during assessment without filing an appeal, leading to penalty proceedings and the demand in question.

2. The appellant, without challenging the order under Section 220(6) by filing a statutory appeal, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to stay the demand. The Judge noted the failure to challenge the conditional order and dismissed the writ petition, leading to the current appeal.

3. The appellant expressed concern over potential additional levies due to the pending appeal on penalty. The Court observed that since the appellant had accepted all disallowances in the original assessment and had already deposited Rs. 5 crores out of the Rs. 10 crores penalty, it was a suitable case for granting a stay till the appeal's disposal.

4. The appellant raised a grievance regarding adverse remarks made by the learned Judge in the order. However, the Court opined that these observations would not significantly impact the appeal's outcome before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to grant a stay until the appeal's disposal and instructed not to consider the observations made by the Court or the learned Judge while deciding the appeal.

---