Non-speaking stay rejection set aside as lack of reasons made coercive recovery impermissible pending appellate stay consideration.

A non-speaking rejection of a stay petition was held unsustainable where the Principal Commissioner gave no reasons beyond noting that the first appeal was pending. The absence of even brief reasons showed lack of application of mind, and mere pendency of the appeal was not a valid ground to refuse stay. The court treated the proper course as requiring the assessee to seek stay before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. The rejection was set aside, and no coercive recovery could proceed until the stay request was decided on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a non-speaking rejection of a stay petition by the Principal Commissioner, despite the remedy contemplated in the CBDT guidelines, could be sustained and whether interim protection against coercive recovery should be granted.

Analysis: The order rejecting stay contained no reasons except the pendency of the first appeal. The absence of even brief reasons showed lack of application of mind, and the pendency of an appeal by itself was not a valid ground to refuse stay. The proper course was for the assessee to approach the appellate authority for consideration of stay in the pending appeal.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable and was set aside. The assessee was directed to move the CIT(A) for stay, and no coercive action could be taken until that request was decided on merits in accordance with law.

---