Court criticizes Assessing Officer, directs application to Additional Commissioner, emphasizes fair treatment, timely acknowledgment.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, criticizing the Assessing Officer's conduct for failing to acknowledge the petitioner's stay application promptly. The court directed the application to be handled by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment and timely acknowledgment of applications. The petition was disposed of with no costs, ensuring justice by assigning the application to a different Officer for a fair decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refusal of the Assessing Officer to accept the petitioner's application for stay.
2. Lack of acknowledgment for the stay application dated 17th February, 2016.
3. Conduct of the Assessing Officer in handling the petitioner's application.
4. Request for the application to be heard by a different Officer.
5. Direction for the application to be dealt with by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.

Analysis:

1. The petition was filed against the Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the petitioner's application for stay dated 17th February, 2016. The petitioner had filed an appeal against a raised demand of Rs. 52.08 crores for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite the Assessing Officer accepting the stay application for demand and penalty proceedings, an acknowledgment was not provided for the stay application, leading to the filing of the petition.

2. The Assessing Officer, in an affidavit-in-reply, mentioned that applications should be filed at the ASK center, but he acknowledged the stay of penalty application. The court found the explanation inconsistent with his conduct, as he acknowledged the stay application on 23rd February, 2016, immediately after being served the petition. The court deemed the explanation unacceptable.

3. The court criticized the Assessing Officer's conduct, stating that civil servants should be fair and civil. The lack of acknowledgment caused uncertainty for the petitioner regarding when coercive proceedings might commence. The court emphasized the importance of providing acknowledgment promptly to the party filing an application.

4. Due to the unsatisfactory behavior of the Assessing Officer, the court directed that the application for stay be heard by another Officer selected by the Revenue, different from the Assessing Officer. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was designated to handle the petitioner's application for stay in accordance with the law.

5. The respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, was directed to deal with the petitioner's application for stay as per the court's order. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, ensuring that justice was served by assigning the application to a different Officer for a fair decision.

---